From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48480) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqHJm-0007J2-Un for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:19:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqHJh-00053A-Kt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:19:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41270) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqHJh-00052i-Ev for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:19:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:19:17 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20170908131917.679e3222.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5a8f76e9-dfb9-9b19-26b9-99734d67efd7@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170905111645.18068-1-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <22830b0b-d05d-22de-271c-f0aa9bca6b64@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170908124905.52a8de36.cohuck@redhat.com> <5a8f76e9-dfb9-9b19-26b9-99734d67efd7@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] add CCW indirect data access support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Halil Pasic Cc: Dong Jia Shi , Pierre Morel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:03:00 +0200 Halil Pasic wrote: > On 09/08/2017 12:49 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:45:25 +0200 > > Halil Pasic wrote: > >> What do you think, would it make more sense to omit or to keep the testing > >> stuff for v2 (I mean patch 5 and the kernel module in the cover letter)? > > > > Can you maybe split this out? It makes it easier if you don't have to > > go hunt in a cover letter. > > > > I'm not sure, I know what you mean. Adding an out-of-tree linux kernel module to > the qemu tree does not sound right, so I suppose I should not send it as a patch. > > Splitting out the test device patch (#5) does not sound like a good idea either, > because it depends on patches #1 and #4. > > TL;DR Yes, I would be glad to if you tell me how. I'd do a separate "series" with both the kernel and the qemu part, stating the dependencies in the cover letter. Patchew will be unhappy, but I will be happier :) > > >> > >> You probably haven't found the time to look at have a glance at "s390x/css: drop > >> data-check in interpretation" (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_810995_&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=afpWhmOLStQASenyglRLvnb_ajvdRfgp4RlDrLw42F4&m=hshoLebtV7YUijl44CLPl5gP9F1HrXyCbL85tQhvA1w&s=SjTjqdOybbUj1pGpODNHdUfXBZBZU-iav6j10EEWYfQ&e= ). We Unlikely to be of your doing, but wtf happened here? > >> have said it would make some things more straight forward here, and I could > >> drop that ugly TODO comment. I think it's quite straight-forward, and I would > >> not mind having a decision on it before v2 or putting it as preparation into > >> v2. What do you prefer? > > > > It is marked for my attention. I don't know whether I find time to look > > at it today, but probably early next week. > > > > OK. Btw, I have a couple of other bug-fixes in the pipe. I think I will just > send out a v1 series to get the discussion started (and for now ignore possible > merge conflicts with my patches already on the list). Don't worry about merge conflicts, I need to figure them out myself anyway :)