On 24.10.2012 17:56, Anthony Bourguignon wrote: > Package: qemu-kvm > Version: 1.1.2+dfsg-2 > Severity: important > Tags: upstream > > Dear Maintainer, > > Currently, the qemu-kvm version packaged in Debian does not handle the > numa parameter as it should do. > The bug has been corrected upstream : > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=ee785fed5dd035d4b12142cacec6d3c344426dec > .
I'm not sure this can be considered an easy bugfix, it is more like missing feature. Maybe it's a good idea to apply it as a bugfix for 1.1.x, but I'd not do that. > Could you please patch the version currently in wheezy or upload 1.2.0 > qemu-kvm version ? No, 1.2.0 is out of the question, we're in feature freeze for wheezy, it was difficult enough to get 1.1.2 into wheezy already. As for patching 1.1.x, this might be done indeed, but see above - I don't consider it a bugfix really. > The current behavior makes the numa parameter pretty > useless. Note that -numa option has nothing to do with HOST numa configuration. It merely adds some topology information to guest, it does not change how things run on host. So it is only about testing various numa-related features in guest. Which is of very limited usage, useful only for very limited configurations -- this is why I don't understand why you consider this an "important" issue. Sure, every feature is important when you need it and it is not present or does not work. This way, lots of other things are also important - for example, UEFI emulation is very handy these days, or lots of devices... I understand these are different from -numa option which, unlike the others mentioned, actually supposed to work but actually doesn't. So is -acpitable slic.bin for example, which, even with correct slic.bin, does not let OEM version of certain operating system to work with offline activation. And so on. I'm sorry for being unhelpful. But unfortunately we're in freeze, and each change should be "defeated" for the release team, current criteria is an RC bugfix or a documentation fix, and this definitely is not an RC bug, so I wont be able to convince the release team it is a good idea. Even if I understand well enough that this is a self-contained piece of code and a low-risk change. Note also that even upstream didn't consider this is a change worth to be done for 1.1-stable release. We'll upload new release into experimental soon, it will be 1.2. But it will, ofcourse, not go to wheezy. Thank you! /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
