Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] add CCW indirect data access support

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:03:00 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 09/08/2017 12:49 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:45:25 +0200
> > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> >> 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.
> >   
> 
> I'm not sure, I know what you mean. Adding an out-of-tree linux kernel module to
> the qemu tree does not sound right, so I suppose I should not send it as a patch.
> 
> Splitting out the test device patch (#5) does not sound like a good idea either,
> because it depends on patches #1 and #4.
> 
> TL;DR Yes, I would be glad to if you tell me how.

I'd do a separate "series" with both the kernel and the qemu part,
stating the dependencies in the cover letter. Patchew will be unhappy,
but I will be happier :)

> 
> >>
> >> You probably haven't found the time to look at have a glance at "s390x/css: drop
> >> data-check in interpretation" (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_810995_&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=afpWhmOLStQASenyglRLvnb_ajvdRfgp4RlDrLw42F4&m=hshoLebtV7YUijl44CLPl5gP9F1HrXyCbL85tQhvA1w&s=SjTjqdOybbUj1pGpODNHdUfXBZBZU-iav6j10EEWYfQ&e= ). We

Unlikely to be of your doing, but wtf happened here?

> >> 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.
> >   
> 
> OK. Btw, I have a couple of other bug-fixes in the pipe. I think I will just
> send out a v1 series to get the discussion started (and for now ignore possible
> merge  conflicts with my patches already on the list).

Don't worry about merge conflicts, I need to figure them out myself
anyway :)