From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48741)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <groeck7@gmail.com>) id 1VBRLY-0007W8-Cf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:26:26 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <groeck7@gmail.com>) id 1VBRLS-0001Zk-IH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:26:20 -0400
Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]:36989)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <groeck7@gmail.com>) id 1VBRLS-0001ZX-BS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:26:14 -0400
Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id y10so5359418pdj.36
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:26:10 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Message-ID: <20130819152610.GA28431@roeck-us.net>
References: <52082EF8.10005@roeck-us.net>
	<CAFEAcA94ygwRPSsfxs3DvOcTZbdafLiEHys94FG4aXUx+A1t=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130813034054.GA18218@roeck-us.net>
	<CAFEAcA_-S8z6ZMr8TMPvkcTyyCSMOj1DExVsY4JDQjRXDU5WGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130815175428.GA18580@roeck-us.net>
	<CAFEAcA_MyJPwo6Gd_dxeWM5q5-7MYqR6-rrePusFzYaGGckWJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130815205044.GA21599@roeck-us.net>
	<CAFEAcA-ALD+dDWAB+Rd1V+TXQLYGe-qRKC0uFUP0Bt2SGfKDRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<520D53CA.6040807@roeck-us.net>
	<CAFEAcA8sOKOs6iQBu7iBdFWW8GymTGR8XSXOceorxzoEoyddNA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8sOKOs6iQBu7iBdFWW8GymTGR8XSXOceorxzoEoyddNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] SCSI bus failures with qemu-arm in kernel 3.8+
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:23:58PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 23:18, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > But doesn't that mean that there is _currently_ no problem ? If so,
> > we can introduce the additional code when the problem really shows up.
> > Being Preemptive is good, but if it is not really needed today
> > I would rather have today's problems resolved and bother about tomorrow's
> > when they show up.
> 
> Conceptually the two parts go together: rely on correct
> irq routing, tell qemu we rely on correct irq routing.
> It's only one extra line...
> 
Possibly, but the lack of progress suggests that by tying both parts
together we might get neither accepted.

Old saying - surgery successful, patient dead.

Guenter