From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Liu Subject: Re: Xen 4.4 development update: RC0 imminent Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:06:52 +0000 Message-ID: <20131205170652.GA29387@zion.uk.xensource.com> References: <20131205163425.GA27631@zion.uk.xensource.com> <52A0AC3F.2010605@eu.citrix.com> <20131205164841.GB27631@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1386262760.20047.130.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VocO8-0006SB-O8 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:06:56 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1386262760.20047.130.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Wei Liu , George Dunlap , Vladimir =?utf-8?Q?'=CF=86-coder=2Fphcoder'?= Serbinenko , Fabio Fantoni , David Vrabel , xen-devel , Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:59:20PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 16:48 +0000, Wei Liu wrote: > > > > >>* Guest EFI booting (tianocore) > > > >> - Wei Liu > > > >> > > > >A bunch of critical patches are neither applied upstream nor in our tree > > > >(though they are already acked / reviewed by maintainers), so I don't > > > >think we want to advertise it as "working"... > > > > > > OK -- would the Xen side of these be something that could come in as > > > "bug fixes", or should I take this off the list of 4.4 features? > > > > > > > I pinged maintainer this morning, let's see his response later. He's in > > GMT -8 timezone. > > > > If we cannot get it merged within next week I would rather take it off > > our list. > > IIRC the Xen side patches were pretty small and straight forward and the > only issue was agreeing the ABI for the struct passed from hvmloader to > ovmf. > Yes, that's the main missing bit. However the interface has been acked on OVMF side, does that mean it is safe to go in now? > Other than that lack of ABI agreement is there anything else which would > block taking the patches on our side. In particular do they break what > little functionality there is with the existing ovmf code base which we > pull in? > No, it only makes OVMF work better than what we have now. ;-) On the other hand I have two more patches for our build system. Shall I send them for review now? Wei. > Ian.