On 04/05/13 01:22, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:52:31AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 04/03/13 22:05, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes:
>>>> Any chance patches 01 to 09 could be considered? Esp. 06 which removes
>>>> an out-of-bounds access (an innocent-looking one, admittedly).
>>>>
>>>> I'm OK too if the series is dropped (patch 11 was the main motivation,
>>>> but the interface that it extends was deemed unsuitable going forward on
>>>> the seabios list). I'd just like to hear the maintainer with
>>>> jurisdiction say the NAK. ("Too expensive even to review for too little
>>>> gain" is a good reason.)
>>>
>>> The whole thing looks pretty nice to me.
>>
>> That's awesome, thank you very much!
>>
>>> I'll merge the full series in
>>> a day or so unless anyone objects.
>>
>> For transparency's sake: Kevin, this is where you'd object to patch 11:
>> it adds an MADT to the existing fw_cfg blob, which, combined with an
>> older (=current) SeaBIOS, leads to a duplicated MADT; see also the blurb
>> in 00/11 which quotes that from
>
> Right. I don't think we should commit patch 11 as that would cause
> the current QEMU/SeaBIOS to incorrectly create two MADT tables. We
> should instead create the new MADT in a separate fw_cfg entry.
>
> The other patches in the series look sane to me.
Anthony committed 01-10/11, I'm going to rework & post 11/11 as a
separate patch. Many thanks.
Laszlo
