From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54049) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TwA2C-0002gg-PB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:22:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TwA2B-0004Ep-N4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:22:56 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65214) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TwA2B-0004Ek-Fh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:22:55 -0500 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0IBMsHq027258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:22:54 -0500 From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: <20130118102857.GB20153@stefanha-thinkpad.hitronhub.home> (Stefan Hajnoczi's message of "Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:28:57 +0100") References: <1358416915-4103-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <20130118102857.GB20153@stefanha-thinkpad.hitronhub.home> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:22:51 +0100 Message-ID: <87mww6ka5w.fsf@elfo.elfo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/3] AHCI migration Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01:52AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Let's get Jason's patches merged while they still apply. I addressed the review >> comments (mostly my own) that came up during the v3 review, otherwise this is >> unchanged. >> >> Please note that in my tests it didn't work entirely reliably and I saw guest >> lockups and kernel crashes in like one of ten cases. I confirmed that the same >> kind of bugs occurs with v3 of the series, so my changes are likely innocent. >> Someone will have to debug this some more, but what I did took about the time >> that I'm willing to spend on it right now. > > It makes sense to merge these patches to avoid bitrot, but should we > keep unmigratable = 1 so that users aren't led to believe migration > works? > > Developers willing to tackle the remaining problem can always comment > out the unmigratable flag during testing. But I think users shouldn't > be exposed to something unreliable. Agreed with that. Later, Juan.