From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53111) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YdFL5-0007of-HN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 05:53:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YdFL2-0004PJ-NB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 05:53:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:52793) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YdFL2-0004P8-I5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 05:53:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1427882010.2115.265.camel@citrix.com> From: Ian Campbell Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:53:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <551BB7F4.7040006@intel.com> References: <1427073466-16956-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1427073466-16956-3-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1427208618.21742.421.camel@citrix.com> <55120B1C.5080004@intel.com> <1427279543.10784.53.camel@citrix.com> <551358A7.2090607@intel.com> <1427364418.10784.122.camel@citrix.com> <5514B281.1050301@intel.com> <1427450046.13935.90.camel@citrix.com> <5518A6B8.2050407@intel.com> <1427707150.13935.235.camel@citrix.com> <551B4445.9070007@intel.com> <1427877942.2115.224.camel@citrix.com> <551BB7F4.7040006@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [v3][PATCH 2/2] libxl: introduce gfx_passthru_kind List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Chen, Tiejun" Cc: Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 17:18 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: > Currently Qemu maintainers are busy finalizing qemu 2.3, they don't > complete to review all associated qemu patch set. Although that don't > bring any change to our two patches on Xen side, I think we'd better > merge these patches until qemu patches are really applied into qemu > tree. So I will send this series again until we can really consume this > with qemu upstream, right? IOW I should put this to one side until you tell me the qemu side is in place (by resending the series)? Fine by me, thanks. > BTW, I really appreciate your all comments in this thread. No problem, thanks for sticking with my nit picking. Ian.