From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43021) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrQID-0006Ig-Jf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:53:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrQI7-0003LK-8s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:52:57 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45094) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrQI7-0003LC-16 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:52:51 -0500 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAKBqn2C004944 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:52:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:52:47 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20141120115247.GA4973@redhat.com> References: <1412607364-14141-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <5462439F.6080401@redhat.com> <546D8491.2010000@redhat.com> <20141120065545.GC30994@redhat.com> <546D9409.9090608@redhat.com> <20141120075540.GA2808@redhat.com> <546DBC9D.40407@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <546DBC9D.40407@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] Migration-safe ACPI table sizing algorithm List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:04:13AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 20/11/2014 08:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:11:05AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 20/11/2014 07:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> I thought we agreed we'll consider alternate approaches after 2.2? > >>> I would prefer not to have yet another mode to support > >>> if we can help it. > >> > >> I agree, but: > >> > >> 1) looks like there is stronger opposition to your patch than I thought, > >> so a 2.2 solution as in this patch becomes more palatable > > > > Why the urgency? It's not fixing any regressions, is it? > > I would rather not add yet another mode for 2.2, > > we'll likely have a new mode in 2.3 but I'd like that to > > be the last one. > > I don't think there's a need to add both patches. If mine goes in, and > it can go in 2.2 since it is "just another mode", It's a mode we don't need - adding it does not fix any bugs. > there is no need for > resizable MemoryRegions. > > Paolo There will be need - otherwise each change will keep adding modes. > >> 2) reviewing patches is always nice, and helps evaluating the advantages > >> of either approach > >> > >> Paolo > > > > I'll do my best, sorry about the delay - I'm trying to prioritize > > 2.2 work at the moment. > > -- MST