[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Qemu-devel] QEMU Summit 2017: minutes

From: Peter Maydell
Subject: [Qemu-devel] QEMU Summit 2017: minutes
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 16:31:35 +0000

As usual, during this year's KVM Forum we also held the
QEMU Summit, which is where the more active subsystem
maintainers meet up for a discussion of various maintenance
and other project issues. As usual, none of this is set-in-stone
decisions; further input and discussion on-list is welcome.

qemu.org hosting update:
 * Rackspace announced they were ending our free sponsorship, and it would
   be too expensive to stay with them at their charged rates
 * We were planning to migrate to hosting with a consultancy company
   who offered to host us
 * However subsequently to the Summit Rackspace had a change of heart and
   are extending the free hosting indefinitely, so we will stay with them
   (at least for now)
 * CDN sponsorship would help us split off downloads, which are the
   bulk of our bandwidth use

 * Problem 1: Contributors cannot get patches merged during freeze
   (bad experience)
 * Problem 2: Block layer subtrees have high chance of conflict towards
   end of freeze
 * Peter Maydell: ...but the block layer seems to be about the only
   area with any significant conflict problems currently
 * Markus Armbruster: Problem 1 is solved if maintainers keep their own
   -next trees
 * Paolo Bonzini: Maintaining -next could slow down or create work for
   -freeze (e.g. who does backports)
 * Action: Maintainers mustn't tell submitters to go away just because
   we're in a release freeze (it's up to them whether they prefer to
   maintain a "-next" tree for their subsystem with patches queued for
   the following release, or track which patches they've accepted
   some other way)
 * We're not going to have an official project-wide "-next" tree, though

Firmware blobs:
 * Gerd Hoffmann: Most users don't use firmware blobs from QEMU repo (they
   get them from distros), blobs are becoming larger and bloating
   download size
 * QEMU now has a /usr/lib/qemu-firmware path where it can load firmware
 * Alex Graf: Even though many distros recompile blobs, some blobs are
   hard to recompile so they are shipped without recompilation
 * Paolo Bonzini: pc-bios/ blobs which have sources in the QEMU tree
   need to stay in the QEMU repo (ie pc-bios/{optionrom,s390-ccw,spapr-rtas})
 * Peter Maydell: Unlikely that adding entire UEFI source tree to QEMU
   repo makes sense, but on the other hand we'd like our from-source
   users to be able to run UEFI on ARM and x86 boards
 * Some firmware blobs need lockstep updates with QEMU (eg sparc openbios,
   likely others), so having them in a separate repo is awkward
 * No clear solution at the moment -- would somebody like to volunteer to
   post a proposal to the list (or just try to capture the requirements)?
Security bug handling:
 * Daniel Berrange: QEMU doesn't document security bugs fixed in last
   release (required by CII Best Practices)
 * Peter Maydell: Currently we effectively delegate providing an actual
   secure QEMU usable in production to distros -- we don't do prompt
   releases with security fixes in
 * Stefan Hajnoczi: Stable tree makes sense if distros can share backporting
   work, if distros are not using the same QEMU point release then the
   stable release tends to be not used much
 * Action: Daniel Berrange will propose process for recording CVEs

QEMU Summit Inclusion:
 * Paolo Bonzini: Currently top contributors plus a set of people with
   responsibilities (e.g. -stable maintainer, qemu.org system administrators)
   are invited.  Should we open the summit to anyone who is interested?
 * Peter Maydell: Adding more people may make discussion unwieldy -- we
   would probably need to make the process more formal with proposed agenda
   items having a defined desired decision or outcome attached. (But that
   might be a good idea anyway!)
 * Peter Maydell: Do the Kernel Summit or Device Tree Summit provide
   anything we can learn from? Perhaps we should take a step back and
   ask why we're doing this anyway...
 * Cornelia Huck: Birds of a Feather sessions could be connected with QEMU
   Summit to discuss maintainer topics
 * No action

Continuous Integration:
 * Christian Borntraeger: qemu-iotests have broken a lot, they should be
   run before patches are merged
 * Peter Maydell: If it isn't tested by "make check" then it isn't tested:
   so if something is regularly regressing then it needs to be added to
   "make check".
 * Peter Maydell: Personal build test scripts are being used on qemu.git,
   looking for help to generalize them so others can do the same build
   testing. (Likely to be awkward since half of it is machines I have
   personal login access to and wouldn't want/be able to give others
   access to.)
 * Action: Stefan Hajnoczi to ask Fam Zheng about status of qemu-iotests
   in patchew

Deprecation Cycle:
 * Daniel Berrange: Current policy gives a 2 release grace period before
   features are removed
 * Markus Armbruster: Sometimes it's painful to keep features that are
   costly to maintain for 2 releases, can we make exceptions to the policy?
 * Daniel Berrange: It's important to stick to the policy so users (e.g.
   management tools) have time to adapt
 * There seems to be some scope for limiting deprecation policy for some
   areas of code

-- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]