On 2015/8/20 8:24, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 August 2015 at 14:25, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: >>>> In the least I wouldn't want to get burned twice, so I'd prefer to >>>> see the SPCR code actually get into Linux first this time. That >>>> would also allow us to point at something when we start breaking >>>> guests. >>> >>> So, if that's the way it has to be, that's the way it has to be. >>> I'd just prefer not having different pieces of firmware validating >>> different software behaviours for the same thing. >> >> Yeah, now it's messy. I'm actually OK with this QEMU patch, with regard >> to the downstream stuff that I'm involved with, but other downstreams >> may not be so flexible... We need Peter to chime in with his opinion, >> CCed. > > Could somebody who understands ACPI and the ramifications > here let me know if I should apply this patch, please? > (since we're now post-2.4) >
I think we should hold back this patch until the kernel patch goes to upstream kernel. And without this patch I think it doesn't break anything. Thanks, -- Shannon
