The first one multiple contributors highlighted the PR as urgent andits had lots of review but it appears to be waiting for another review and/or someone that owns the affected hardware to test that the PR fixes the issue, it wpuld be easy for you to test and report whether or not it does, and the second thing is not related to llama.cpp at all

Yes ideally there would be testing every hardware + software combo but this costs engineering time and $$$ money, and you are running on master branch, no master branch of any software is stable, inherently, if you run into issues, just stick to the old hash where stuff worked, why are you insistent on both being at the bleeding edge and experience 0 breakage!

I did report my test results on the first one. :)

The second I didn't say it's any of llama.cpp's "fault", but it is _related_ to llama.cpp since it's being shipped in another system, aye?

Can't stick to the old hash either, because older version have different bugs. E.g. on older versions the same Qwen3.6 model reliably fails to call specific tools due to template issues, while just having the newer llama.cpp version has that fixed. So different versions - different bugs, rather than no bugs.

Why the beating you are trying to gimme, mate? :)