From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52826) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDXmU-0005aJ-N7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 06:42:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDXmO-0002E1-Mo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 06:42:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47222) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDXmO-0002Du-FS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 06:42:44 -0400 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:44:30 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20130825104429.GA1137@redhat.com> References: <1377103396-24307-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1377103396-24307-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20130821170120.GA12305@redhat.com> <5214F273.9060806@redhat.com> <20130821170707.GA12410@redhat.com> <5214F38D.2020004@redhat.com> <52160770.90908@redhat.com> <5216070F.8090900@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5216070F.8090900@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] pvpanic: rename to isa-pvpanic List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: pkrempa@redhat.com, marcel.a@redhat.com, libvir-list@redhat.com, hutao@cn.fujitsu.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, rhod@redhat.com, kraxel@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, lcapitulino@redhat.com, Laszlo Ersek , afaerber@suse.de On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:41:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 22/08/2013 14:43, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto: > > On 08/21/13 19:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> Il 21/08/2013 19:07, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > > >>> NACK > >> > >> You know that a single developer's NACK counts nothing (it can be you, > >> it can be me), don't you? > > > > going meta... > > > > What's this? > > > > All I know (... I think I know) about patch acceptance is that Anthony > > prefers to have at least one R-b. As far as I've seen this is not a hard > > requirement (for example, maintainers sometimes send unreviewed patches > > in a pull request, and on occasion they are merged). > > > > No words have been spent on NAKs yet (... since my subscription, that > > is). Is this stuff formalized somewhere? > > > > Sorry for wasting time... > > No, it's not. But for example I NACKed removal of pvpanic from 1.6, it > was overridden, and I didn't complain too much. > > Paolo I don't think it was overridden. In fact you NACKed an explicit -device pvpanic. You suggested disabling in 1.6 but keeping it a builtin, but this was never implemented, afterwards issues with Linux guests surfaced, we discussed this again on the KVM call, and there seemed to be a concensus that it's an OK patch, with some issues. A week later Marcel sent v2, it worked and looked like the least problematic path to take. -- MST