From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52386) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gUSbc-0002vG-2a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 03:32:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gUSbb-0001mC-6J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 03:32:28 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43366) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gUSba-0001lj-UX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 03:32:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:32:21 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20181205093221.206dc18d.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20181204125621.0ad30dc0@x1.home> References: <154394083644.28192.8501647946108201466.stgit@gimli.home> <154394987445.795.4102526920089904508.stgit@gimli.home> <6bc68937-ec9e-d28f-9468-5ee9ba08ef52@de.ibm.com> <20181204122647.3a560066@x1.home> <20181204125621.0ad30dc0@x1.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [for-4.0 PATCH v3.1 8/9] q35/440fx/arm/spapr/ccw: Add QEMU 4.0 machine type List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex Williamson Cc: Peter Maydell , Christian Borntraeger , QEMU Developers , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcel Apfelbaum , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Eduardo Habkost , David Hildenbrand , David Gibson , =?UTF-8?B?TWFyYy1BbmRyw6k=?= Lureau On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:56:21 -0700 Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:29:25 +0000 > Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 19:26, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 20:16:44 +0100 > > > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > > I think Conny has already added the s390/ccw part to her next tree. > > > > From a quick glimpse both patches look identical. > > > > > > If so then we can just use the original v3 version of this patch that > > > touches all but ccw and let them come together in mainline. My > > > assumption is that Peter is only trying to make sure all versioned > > > machines are updated early in this release, not necessarily that > > > they need to be updated together. > > > > Yes, that's the idea. I also think it's a suboptimal idea > > to include the version-number-bump patch in a series that's > > adding some feature, because then if the feature itself > > has to go through several rounds of patch review the > > version-number-bump patch is stuck unapplied (we saw that > > at the end of the 3.1 cycle), or it gets bumped by some > > other unrelated series and then there's a merge conflict. > > But that's more of a things-for-next time remark, no need > > to rearrange this now. > > If you and the other stakeholders agree, you are more than welcome to > pluck this patch from the series and apply it as soon as 4.0 opens. It > might make things a tiny bit easier down the road to avoid the > conflicts since we seem to have multiple contenders vying for this > update. Maybe the best practice going forward is to open the merge > window with such a commit. Thanks, FWIW, I had planned to send a pull request with what is in my queue (including the new machine type) first thing after 4.0 opens. For the next release: Should we always create a patch like this that adds the new type for all machines and queue this as the first thing when the tree opens again? (I'd even be willing to do that...) For this release, I would prefer to use the already-existing patches instead.