From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57311) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dim4M-0005b2-Qw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:32:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dim4J-0007Zt-Nd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:32:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58040) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dim4J-0007Zg-H5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:32:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 21:32:23 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20170818213110-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20170817162347.1590-1-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <20170817162347.1590-3-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <20170818043655-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20170818113734.181332ad@nial.brq.redhat.com> <20170818133107.GG1475@perard.uk.xensource.com> <20170818161957.3a63f611@nial.brq.redhat.com> <20170818160018.GH1475@perard.uk.xensource.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170818160018.GH1475@perard.uk.xensource.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.10 v3 2/3] hw/acpi: Move acpi_set_pci_info to pcihp List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony PERARD Cc: Igor Mammedov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Stefano Stabellini , Bruce Rogers , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Eduardo Habkost , Marcel Apfelbaum , Peter Maydell On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 05:00:18PM +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Clean it up after 2.10. > > > > > > > > > > > So is the v2 good enough or do I need to resend it? > > Do you really need it in 2.10? > > it's only 2 days left till release so unless it's blocker > > I'd wait till after release and do clean fix. > > It mostly means that someone building QEMU 2.10 would be unable to do > PCI passthrough hotplug. But PCI PT works fine when the device is added > before a guest is started. Maybe hotplug can work as well with extra > steps done in the guest to force to probe for new devices. > > So I would say it is not a blocker, and could be added in the known > issue of the release notes? Regressions aren't nice. But risk to working setups isn't nice either. If you can come up with a patch that obviously limits the effect to xen only, I'll merge it or ack for merge through Xen tree. > -- > Anthony PERARD