From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:33:13 -0500 Message-ID: <4A576D49.40809@us.ibm.com> References: <4A401A65.3080804@us.ibm.com> <1247128021.22231.1.camel@blaa> <4A55F150.3020803@codemonkey.ws> <87eisp1gx2.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> <4A5747E4.3030101@us.ibm.com> <4A57586B.9050900@siemens.com> <4A576317.6010000@us.ibm.com> <4A576AF6.6080307@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Markus Armbruster , Mark McLoughlin , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , kvm-devel , Paul Brook To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:40626 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753569AbZGJQdQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:33:16 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6AGPPtd022781 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:25:25 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n6AGXFYk225938 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:33:15 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n6AGXE4Z019095 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:33:15 -0600 In-Reply-To: <4A576AF6.6080307@siemens.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Kiszka wrote: > Ah, thanks. > > OK, then I would like to know the status of my -boot patch queue [1] I'm stilling waiting for 1/7 and 2/7. Via the link you posted and in my inbox, I still don't see those. I do see a 1/2 and a 2/2 but those are bios patches. Did you have a numbering issue or did some patches get lost in the ether? > and > at least of patch 1..3 of my gdbstub queue [2] (though I'm still waiting > for the factual proof that patch 4 is unneeded - my last arguments > remained unanswered). > Paul expressed objection in the past to the debugging model of treating vcpus as threads vs. treating them as processes. I'm not qualified to appreciate the difference so I'm inclined to side with Paul. Am I missing something there? -- Regards, Anthony Liguori