Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 12/22] vhost: rename VHOST_RESET_OWNER to VHOST_RESET_DEVICE

[Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:01:58AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 November 2015 at 01:34, Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:42:15AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 3 October 2015 at 17:33, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:18:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 24/09/2015 15:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> >> > From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Quote from Michael:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >     We really should rename VHOST_RESET_OWNER to VHOST_RESET_DEVICE.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where is the corresponding Linux patch for this?
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to fetch the updated headers for KVM, and this is breaking
> >> >> it.  In fact, a patch that just renames the #define (without providing
> >> >> the old name for backwards compatibility) would be NACKed in upstream Linux.
> >> >>
> >> >> Paolo
> >> >
> >> > Right. And it turns out this whole approach is wrong.  I intend to
> >> > revert this patch, and also drop the patch sending VHOST_RESET_OWNER on
> >> > device stop.
> >>
> >> This revert doesn't seem to have happened, I think, which means
> >> that this is one of the things which prevents a clean header-update
> >> against kvm/next. Could we get this fixed for rc0, please?
> >
> > My bad. I will fix it next week. What's the deadline for rc0 then?
> 
> rc0 is 12th November (http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/2.5). You need
> to also allow time for the patch to be reviewed and possibly taken
> via somebody's tree.

Got it and thanks for the remind.

	--yliu