On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 09:13:01AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > The changes to the output files are the exact opposite of > > those from commit 22207713cf8e: this is proof that the fix is > > working as intended, and that existing domains will keep using > > raw firmware images regardless of whether or not qcow2 images > > are available on the system and have higher priority. > > > > New domains will keep picking whatever firmware is considered > > the preferred one according to the order of descriptors, as > > evidenced by the fact that the recently introduced > > firmware-auto-efi-abi-update-aarch64 test case is unaffected. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abolo...@redhat.com> > > Reviewed-by: Martin Kletzander <mklet...@redhat.com> > > and safe for freeze (I presume we _really_ do not want to release > without this patch).
Yeah, that would be far from ideal :) > Should we add "Fixes: 22207713cf8e82ab792acb3412720702938bfc81" ? I'll > leave that up to you. Even though that's the one where the effects of the issue can be seen reflected in the test suite, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the changes made by that commit, so claiming that this patch is a fix for it feels wrong. The actual culprit would be one of the preparatory commits, perhaps 1a6469e81fd0? But I'm not 100% convinced, so I think I'll just leave the tag out. It's significantly less useful when the issue is both introduced and resolved within the same release anyway. Thanks a lot for the review! -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
