From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53508)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1V4pLg-00079w-IZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 05:39:17 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1V4pLX-00019U-Uy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 05:39:08 -0400
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]:58154)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1V4pLX-00019G-No
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 05:38:59 -0400
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id n5so1513734wev.28
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 02:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:38:56 +0200
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130801093856.GC29838@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
References: <1375258430-2120-1-git-send-email-v.maffione@gmail.com>
	<51F8DF58.4030104@suse.de>
	<CA+_eA9g7CKUmrZ-LjyKy5EcSf0=Sx+yLfNGy8OrSbhYTNzuqxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130731112024.GD28592@stefanha-thinkpad.muc.redhat.com>
	<CA+_eA9ic-mB2X6Zb0HDm1fyY-0mMMqZmJ7HEo+AzoZapQC22xQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+_eA9ic-mB2X6Zb0HDm1fyY-0mMMqZmJ7HEo+AzoZapQC22xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/2] e1000: add interrupt mitigation
 support
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vincenzo Maffione <v.maffione@gmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, lersek@redhat.com, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Giuseppe Lettieri <g.lettieri@iet.unipi.it>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 03:39:05PM +0200, Vincenzo Maffione wrote:
> Ok, but it's unclear how do you prefer to create and "empty"
> PC_COMPAT_1_6 in Patch 1.
> If you want to keep this declaration form
> 
> [...]
> .compat_props = (GlobalProperty[]) {
>         PC_COMPAT_1_6,
>         { /* end of list */ }
>     },
> [...]
> 
> in the two pc_*_machine_v1_6 structs, I'm forced to define
> 
> #define PC_COMPAT_1_6 { /*empty*/ }
> 
> but then I can't extend PC_COMPAT_1_5 with PC_COMPAT_1_6 as "header"
> (like you guys do for PC_COMPAT_1_5 and PC_COMPAT_1_4), because
> otherwise PC_COMPAT_1_6 would act as a premature terminator for
> PC_COMPAT_1_5 (right?).
> 
> Should I extend PC_COMPAT_1_5 with PC_COMPAT_1_6 as a "tail", or
> should I avoid extending it in the Patch 1, and do the extension in
> Patch 2 (when I have a non-empty PC_COMPAT_1_6)?

You are right, (GlobalProperty[]) {, {...}} is not valid syntax.  In
that case I would switch PC_COMPAT_1_6 into the e1000 interrupt
mitigation patch.  That way the patches are bisectable.

You can still introduce the QEMU 1.7 pc machine type as a separate
patch if you wish, but I no longer see a big win if PC_COMPAT_1_6 cannot
be isolated from the e1000 change.

Andreas: Do you agree to do everything in a single patch?

Stefan