From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50472) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCOG1-0001Po-42 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 01:52:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCOFs-0006ao-N5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 01:52:49 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c00::231]:38862) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCOFs-0006aj-Fc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 01:52:40 -0500 Received: by mail-ee0-f49.google.com with SMTP id d17so2308449eek.36 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:52:39 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <52F725B1.4070603@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:52:33 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1391445551-6561-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1391445551-6561-17-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <52F6695A.7090801@suse.de> <52F6BEB1.2090606@redhat.com> <52F6DCDB.3050903@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <52F6DCDB.3050903@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Igor Mammedov , Eduardo Habkost First of all, sorry for snipping the technical parts. You made good points, but I think the actual problem is not technical. We should first sort out the social part. Il 09/02/2014 02:41, Andreas Färber ha scritto: > Similarly I feel that you have given quite some destructive feedback to > my favorite series The only one I can think of is recursive realization, and that's because I'm absolutely not sure of the way to do it. It's not destructive feedback, it's "are you sure it's the right way? Because I don't even know _what_ is right". > the last few months, not clearly stating how you want > things done instead. If you're jealous that you didn't make top 1 at KVM > Forum 2013 Are you serious?!? > you have lots of chances to catch up for 2.0 rather than being > unfriendly to me and obstructive to my line of work. FWIW, picking up obvious KVM-ish patches is not being unfriendly, it's trying to be helpful. If you haven't reviewed a patch for 3 months it obviously means that you were busy. > I don't personally consider such statistics telling. Me neither, FWIW. Paolo