From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36119) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqGqY-00062n-F2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:49:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqGqT-0007ds-NP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:49:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34454) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqGqT-0007da-H8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:49:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:49:05 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20170908124905.52a8de36.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <22830b0b-d05d-22de-271c-f0aa9bca6b64@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170905111645.18068-1-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <22830b0b-d05d-22de-271c-f0aa9bca6b64@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] add CCW indirect data access support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Halil Pasic Cc: Dong Jia Shi , Pierre Morel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:45:25 +0200 Halil Pasic wrote: > The discussion seems to have settled down quite a bit. Since there weren't > many complaints, I would like to opt for a v2 fixing the things pointed out > during the review early next week (I was thinking Tuesday maybe some late birds > are going to join in). > > @Connie > ======== > > Does that sound reasonable or would you like more time for v1? No, sounds good. > > What do you think, would it make more sense to omit or to keep the testing > stuff for v2 (I mean patch 5 and the kernel module in the cover letter)? Can you maybe split this out? It makes it easier if you don't have to go hunt in a cover letter. > > You probably haven't found the time to look at have a glance at "s390x/css: drop > data-check in interpretation" (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/810995/). We > have said it would make some things more straight forward here, and I could > drop that ugly TODO comment. I think it's quite straight-forward, and I would > not mind having a decision on it before v2 or putting it as preparation into > v2. What do you prefer? It is marked for my attention. I don't know whether I find time to look at it today, but probably early next week.