qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [ANNOUNCE] QEMU 2.6.1 Stable released


From: Michael Roth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [ANNOUNCE] QEMU 2.6.1 Stable released
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:23:45 -0500
User-agent: alot/0.3.6

Quoting Peter Lieven (2016-08-25 01:38:13)
> Am 17.08.2016 um 21:30 schrieb Michael Roth:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I am pleased to announce that the QEMU v2.6.1 stable release is now
> > available:
> >
> >    http://wiki.qemu.org/download/qemu-2.6.1.tar.bz2
> >
> > v2.6.1 is now tagged in the official qemu.git repository,
> > and the stable-2.6 branch has been updated accordingly:
> >
> >    http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/stable-2.6
> >
> > This is a fairly large update that addresses a broad range of bugs
> > and security issues. Users should upgrade accordingly.
> >
> > Thank you to everyone involved!
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> thanks for putting this together. Unfortunately, I was on holiday during
> the patch round up for 2.6.1
> 
> I additionally have the following 5 patches in case you want or need to
> release a 2.6.1.1 or 2.6.2:
> 
> bd9f480 ui: fix refresh of VNC server surface
> 4c23084 net: limit allocation in nc_sendv_compat

I don't see these in master yet.

> bf97c17 iscsi: pass SCSI status back for SG_IO

I'll pull this in if there's another release, but doesn't look
like a regression from 2.6.0 at least.

> 7c509d1 virtio: decrement vq->inuse in virtqueue_discard()
> 700f26b virtio: recalculate vq->inuse after migration

Looks like these got posted during the freeze :(

> 
> The virtio thing is important because live migration is broken without
> the fix as  86cc089 is in 2.6.1.

Not sure I understand the relation to 86cc089. Wouldn't the check
introduced there always pass due to target initializing inuse to 0?

Or is the issue that the fix introduced in 86cc089 is only partially
effective due to inuse not being recalculated properly on target? That might
warrant a 2.6.1.1...

> 
> Thanks,
> Peter
> 




reply via email to

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