From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52685) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VW5Je-0007fj-WB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:09:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VW5Ja-0002I9-9z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:09:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4663) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VW5Ja-0002I4-2I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:09:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:09:28 +0200 From: Igor Mammedov Message-ID: <20131015160928.36919ce8@nial.usersys.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1381762577-12526-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <87r4bnlbj6.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <20131015052816.GC16331@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/43] pci, pc, acpi fixes, enhancements List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Peter Maydell , marcel.a@redhat.com, Gerd Hoffmann , qemu-devel , "Michael S. Tsirkin" On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 06:51:30 -0700 Anthony Liguori wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 03:42:37PM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes: > >> > >> > Anthony, I know you wanted to review some of the patches, > >> > since you didn't respond either all's well or you > >> > could not find the time. > >> > I think we are better off merging them for 1.7 and then - worst case, > >> > if major issues surface - disabling the functionality at the last minute > >> > than delaying the merge even more. > >> > >> There is no way I'll pull this for 1.7. Changes like this aren't going > >> to get merged at the last minute. > > > > Last minute? This has been on list for months. > > It doesn't matter how long the patches have been on the list. We have > a very short testing cycle for releases. > > This pull request lacks any automated testing. Something like this > really should come with at least some qtest validation that we are > still generating the right ACPI tables but certainly could have > simpler unit tests too. > > There is no statement about what manual testing you actually did. > Have you run kvm autotest? Have you tested a variety of Windows > guests? I've manually boot/install tested a bunch of x64 based OSes rhel6/fc18/ws2008/ws2012/ws2003r2/XP There were no regressions so far.