From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48938) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agwf1-0004eP-0N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:49:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agwez-0002Ys-TV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:49:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 15:49:47 +0000 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20160318154947.GC21242@stefanha-x1.localdomain> References: <1455645388-32401-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20160316181819.GD2012@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <56E9DE2E.5060607@redhat.com> <20160317134430.GJ14062@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <56EAB590.1020403@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56EAB590.1020403@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH 00/16] AioContext fine-grained locking, part 1 of 3, including bdrv_drain rewrite List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org --YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:48:00PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 17/03/2016 14:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > For example, each part will probably have an uncontroversial and > > > generally useful prefix---for example patches 1-4 in this case, or the > > > change to a single linux-aio context per iothread. You could merge > > > those only, and for the rest, I will maintain myself a branch with R-b > > > from maintainers. Master will be periodically merged into it, but not > > > too frequently---it could be only after each part is accepted, or when > > > there is some important bugfix to catch. Once the whole multiqueue > > > thing gets somewhere I would send you a pull request with the entire > > > feature, which would consist of say 200 patches all with a Reviewed-by > > > already. > > >=20 > > > This is just a possibility; if you have any other idea, I'd be happy = to > > > follow it. > > > > That sounds reasonable. I guess you are sending a) infrastructure and = safe > > changes alongside b) longer-term work. If you indicate which patches > > are a) then that makes it easier to merge parts into qemu.git before all > > the long-term work is complete. >=20 > Great, let's try it then. For this series (well, for v2 of this series) > only patches 1-4 would be considered infrastructure. They were sent > before soft freeze, would they be acceptable for 2.6? >=20 > In general I would send "safe" patches as [PATCH mm/nn] and everything > else as [PATCH multiqueue mm/nn] or similar, but in either case I'd be > seeking formal maintainer review as soon as I send them. Okay. I'll hope over to the v2 series to take a look. Stefan --YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJW7CObAAoJEJykq7OBq3PIBVIH/1l1b73sZOjXV1zoUy1m72Vr c0sJmHsgqqefAUWdoiVa8fx47NS89JFYb+lvPUyLPJoYTeO53afOwNXmGzk5jf0Q xiUmDFDSCW7zxb1pSCPHzVBCDiNFLM2s8zLtudokx2y693clBeRPNJvwE4TLwttT 7MMgWRIdcNIWiEf3TeigUy2QWdbqzlwQlF2cMt0kBJJTaL/kqKAJa5jT7s1U3Rpp m8bSdoX4d9Sm1qsJAHJhegbg1SW7CkWEY1v4iHx3yXCrMnoVyH9V7nZWf1gyo0VJ rB5nM4Xf/Cro3DXBQLQJPCVmxKMqXc9CbAQlCzI4IZb1SlGLHf9MwOzb6IhB1eg= =0dOY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ--