On 4 August 2017 at 18:48, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > * Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: >> Hi; I noticed today that the virt board doesn't have a virt-2.10 >> machine type defined. Do we need to add it before release? >> >> (I don't know if there have in fact been any changes between >> 2.9 and 2.10 that would be compatibility issues.) > > I think there's two sub questions: > a) The virt-2.9 needs to pick up HW_COMPAT_2_9 if anything > in it is relevant for ARM > > b) If anything is relevant in it for ARM then you probably > want a virt-2.10 so that you can take advantage of whatever > was changed that needed compatibility adding in HW_COMPAT_2_9
...and also, do we as policy want to define a virt-X.Y for every X.Y release even if it happens that there are no changes between X.Y-1 and X.Y ? From a user point of view it seems a bit odd for one to be missing. thanks -- PMM
