Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Peter Maydell]

On 3 September 2013 09:27, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
> ---
>
> I need this update as VFIO on PPC64/pseries got in upstream kernel
> and this is required by VFIO-SPAPR bits in QEMU. Others may find this
> update useful too :)
> ---
>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h       | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h  |   1 +
>  linux-headers/asm-mips/kvm.h        |  81 +++++++++--------
>  linux-headers/linux/kvm.h           |   3 +
>  linux-headers/linux/vfio.h          |  42 ++++++++-
>  linux-headers/linux/virtio_config.h |   3 +
>  6 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h
>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h

I think this should go in via the KVM tree, not trivial.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 09/03/2013 07:29 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 September 2013 09:27, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
>> ---
>>
>> I need this update as VFIO on PPC64/pseries got in upstream kernel
>> and this is required by VFIO-SPAPR bits in QEMU. Others may find this
>> update useful too :)
>> ---
>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h       | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h  |   1 +
>>  linux-headers/asm-mips/kvm.h        |  81 +++++++++--------
>>  linux-headers/linux/kvm.h           |   3 +
>>  linux-headers/linux/vfio.h          |  42 ++++++++-
>>  linux-headers/linux/virtio_config.h |   3 +
>>  6 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h
>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h
> 
> I think this should go in via the KVM tree, not trivial.

I do not mind, it just went through the trivial tree last time, that's it.


-- 
Alexey

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2013-09-03 11:32, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 07:29 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 3 September 2013 09:27, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I need this update as VFIO on PPC64/pseries got in upstream kernel
>>> and this is required by VFIO-SPAPR bits in QEMU. Others may find this
>>> update useful too :)
>>> ---
>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h       | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h  |   1 +
>>>  linux-headers/asm-mips/kvm.h        |  81 +++++++++--------
>>>  linux-headers/linux/kvm.h           |   3 +
>>>  linux-headers/linux/vfio.h          |  42 ++++++++-
>>>  linux-headers/linux/virtio_config.h |   3 +
>>>  6 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h
>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h
>>
>> I think this should go in via the KVM tree, not trivial.
> 
> I do not mind, it just went through the trivial tree last time, that's it.

This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too
often in this area.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 09/03/2013 08:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-09-03 11:32, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 09/03/2013 07:29 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 3 September 2013 09:27, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> I need this update as VFIO on PPC64/pseries got in upstream kernel
>>>> and this is required by VFIO-SPAPR bits in QEMU. Others may find this
>>>> update useful too :)
>>>> ---
>>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h       | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h  |   1 +
>>>>  linux-headers/asm-mips/kvm.h        |  81 +++++++++--------
>>>>  linux-headers/linux/kvm.h           |   3 +
>>>>  linux-headers/linux/vfio.h          |  42 ++++++++-
>>>>  linux-headers/linux/virtio_config.h |   3 +
>>>>  6 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h
>>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h
>>>
>>> I think this should go in via the KVM tree, not trivial.
>>
>> I do not mind, it just went through the trivial tree last time, that's it.
> 
> This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too
> often in this area.


Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
This is a mechanical change, no more.


-- 
Alexey

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Peter Maydell]

On 3 September 2013 16:28, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 08:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too
>> often in this area.
>
>
> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
> This is a mechanical change, no more.

The classic way for things to break is that a header
update accidentally reverts something (because a
previous update was from kvm-next and this one is
from mainline, for example). Accidental updates against
a kernel which is neither kvm-next nor mainline are
the other common "broken" version of a header update
patch.

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Paolo Bonzini]

Il 03/09/2013 17:28, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
> On 09/03/2013 08:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2013-09-03 11:32, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2013 07:29 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> On 3 September 2013 09:27, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> I need this update as VFIO on PPC64/pseries got in upstream kernel
>>>>> and this is required by VFIO-SPAPR bits in QEMU. Others may find this
>>>>> update useful too :)
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h       | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h  |   1 +
>>>>>  linux-headers/asm-mips/kvm.h        |  81 +++++++++--------
>>>>>  linux-headers/linux/kvm.h           |   3 +
>>>>>  linux-headers/linux/vfio.h          |  42 ++++++++-
>>>>>  linux-headers/linux/virtio_config.h |   3 +
>>>>>  6 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h
>>>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h
>>>>
>>>> I think this should go in via the KVM tree, not trivial.
>>>
>>> I do not mind, it just went through the trivial tree last time, that's it.
>>
>> This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too
>> often in this area.
> 
> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
> This is a mechanical change, no more.

It's a matter of keeping things bisectable.  If we can detect a
breakage, we can first work around it, and then apply the header update.
 And if we don't detect it, maintainers usually send pull requests when
they have time to work on breakage caused by their patches.

Paolo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 09/04/2013 01:34 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 September 2013 16:28, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>> On 09/03/2013 08:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too
>>> often in this area.
>>
>>
>> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
>> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
>> This is a mechanical change, no more.
> 
> The classic way for things to break is that a header
> update accidentally reverts something (because a
> previous update was from kvm-next and this one is
> from mainline, for example). Accidental updates against
> a kernel which is neither kvm-next nor mainline are
> the other common "broken" version of a header update
> patch.

I can understand that but this update is a mainline kernel update and it is
not an accidental one but very specific :-/


-- 
Alexey

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Peter Maydell]

On 3 September 2013 16:47, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 01:34 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> The classic way for things to break is that a header
>> update accidentally reverts something (because a
>> previous update was from kvm-next and this one is
>> from mainline, for example). Accidental updates against
>> a kernel which is neither kvm-next nor mainline are
>> the other common "broken" version of a header update
>> patch.
>
> I can understand that but this update is a mainline kernel
> update and it is not an accidental one but very specific :-/

Nobody has been saying there is a problem with this
patch. We're just saying it should go via the kvm
tree rather than the trivial patches tree.

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Alex Williamson]

On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 01:47 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 01:34 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 3 September 2013 16:28, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
> >> On 09/03/2013 08:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too
> >>> often in this area.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
> >> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
> >> This is a mechanical change, no more.
> > 
> > The classic way for things to break is that a header
> > update accidentally reverts something (because a
> > previous update was from kvm-next and this one is
> > from mainline, for example). Accidental updates against
> > a kernel which is neither kvm-next nor mainline are
> > the other common "broken" version of a header update
> > patch.
> 
> I can understand that but this update is a mainline kernel update and it is
> not an accidental one but very specific :-/

I was under the impression that we were only ever updating linux-headers
from mainline, never from kvm-next.  Therefore any mainline tag should
be a reasonable re-base target.  Thanks,

Alex

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Peter Maydell]

On 3 September 2013 16:58, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> I was under the impression that we were only ever updating linux-headers
> from mainline, never from kvm-next.

Looking at the git history, it's variable. Four of the
last 10 updates were from somewhere other than mainline.
In any case this is the kind of policy decision that
means updates should go via the QEMU KVM maintainers :-)

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Alex Williamson]

On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 17:03 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 September 2013 16:58, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I was under the impression that we were only ever updating linux-headers
> > from mainline, never from kvm-next.
> 
> Looking at the git history, it's variable. Four of the
> last 10 updates were from somewhere other than mainline.
> In any case this is the kind of policy decision that
> means updates should go via the QEMU KVM maintainers :-)

Seems like every update except ppc has come from mainline.  Personally,
I don't think it makes sense anymore.  QEMU has scope beyond KVM and it
makes about as much sense to snapshot kvm.git as it does to snapshot my
vfio next branch or Michael's virtio queue.  If we only pull from
mainline we never have to worry about regressing something that isn't
actually upstream yet.  Thanks,

Alex

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 09/04/2013 01:35 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 03/09/2013 17:28, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>> On 09/03/2013 08:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2013-09-03 11:32, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>> On 09/03/2013 07:29 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>> On 3 September 2013 09:27, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I need this update as VFIO on PPC64/pseries got in upstream kernel
>>>>>> and this is required by VFIO-SPAPR bits in QEMU. Others may find this
>>>>>> update useful too :)
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h       | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h  |   1 +
>>>>>>  linux-headers/asm-mips/kvm.h        |  81 +++++++++--------
>>>>>>  linux-headers/linux/kvm.h           |   3 +
>>>>>>  linux-headers/linux/vfio.h          |  42 ++++++++-
>>>>>>  linux-headers/linux/virtio_config.h |   3 +
>>>>>>  6 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>>>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h
>>>>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this should go in via the KVM tree, not trivial.
>>>>
>>>> I do not mind, it just went through the trivial tree last time, that's it.
>>>
>>> This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too
>>> often in this area.
>>
>> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
>> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
>> This is a mechanical change, no more.
> 
> It's a matter of keeping things bisectable.  If we can detect a
> breakage, we can first work around it, and then apply the header update.
>  And if we don't detect it, maintainers usually send pull requests when
> they have time to work on breakage caused by their patches.


I can see the discussion but I do not see if anyone is going to pull this
through any tree. Please, somebody, pull. Thanks.


-- 
Alexey

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Paolo Bonzini]

Il 05/09/2013 05:16, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>>> >> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
>>> >> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
>>> >> This is a mechanical change, no more.
>> > 
>> > It's a matter of keeping things bisectable.  If we can detect a
>> > breakage, we can first work around it, and then apply the header update.
>> >  And if we don't detect it, maintainers usually send pull requests when
>> > they have time to work on breakage caused by their patches.
> 
> I can see the discussion but I do not see if anyone is going to pull this
> through any tree. Please, somebody, pull. Thanks.

It will go in through the KVM tree, probably sometime next week.

Paolo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 09/05/2013 04:07 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 05/09/2013 05:16, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>>>>>> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
>>>>>> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
>>>>>> This is a mechanical change, no more.
>>>>
>>>> It's a matter of keeping things bisectable.  If we can detect a
>>>> breakage, we can first work around it, and then apply the header update.
>>>>  And if we don't detect it, maintainers usually send pull requests when
>>>> they have time to work on breakage caused by their patches.
>>
>> I can see the discussion but I do not see if anyone is going to pull this
>> through any tree. Please, somebody, pull. Thanks.
> 
> It will go in through the KVM tree, probably sometime next week.


It is pretty impressive how such a trivial patch is still on its way to the
upstream :)


-- 
Alexey

Re: [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11

[Gleb Natapov]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 01:04:01PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 04:07 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 05/09/2013 05:16, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
> >>>>>> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
> >>>>>> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
> >>>>>> This is a mechanical change, no more.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's a matter of keeping things bisectable.  If we can detect a
> >>>> breakage, we can first work around it, and then apply the header update.
> >>>>  And if we don't detect it, maintainers usually send pull requests when
> >>>> they have time to work on breakage caused by their patches.
> >>
> >> I can see the discussion but I do not see if anyone is going to pull this
> >> through any tree. Please, somebody, pull. Thanks.
> > 
> > It will go in through the KVM tree, probably sometime next week.
> 
> 
> It is pretty impressive how such a trivial patch is still on its way to the
> upstream :)
> 
It was applied long time ago
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/qemu-kvm.git/commit/?h=uq/master&id=8c409e659bc1373fab49a277bb5dc71babb73551

Sync with qemu.git does not happen after every patch though. If you are
working on kvm parts using qemu-kvm.git uq/master branch will make sure
that you are working on most up to date kvm bits. If you work depends on
something that is not in qemu-kvm.git then let kvm maintainers know and
we will send pull request to Anthony earlier.

--
			Gleb.