From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4C1C433E0 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 22:46:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3039F64E2E for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 22:46:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3039F64E2E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:32974 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGUpN-0003J9-AL for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:46:17 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36834) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGUnZ-0002HJ-PW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:44:25 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]:34344) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGUnY-0006pm-AO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:44:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A8A34C; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:44:21 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aquilenet.fr Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lr73M0_8uJwh; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:44:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from begin.home (unknown [IPv6:2a01:cb19:956:1b00:de41:a9ff:fe47:ec49]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31486F8; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:44:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from samy by begin.home with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1lGUnT-001l5d-P7; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:44:19 +0100 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:44:19 +0100 From: Samuel Thibault To: Doug Evans Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] net/slirp.c: Refactor address parsing Message-ID: <20210228224419.mcbyhs67d3e7pjyi@begin> References: <20210203213729.1940893-1-dje@google.com> <20210203213729.1940893-2-dje@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: I am not organized User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: hera.aquilenet.fr X-Rspamd-Server: hera X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: F0A8A34C X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.50 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%] Received-SPF: softfail client-ip=185.233.100.1; envelope-from=samuel.thibault@gnu.org; helo=hera.aquilenet.fr X-Spam_score_int: -11 X-Spam_score: -1.2 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , QEMU Developers Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Hello, Doug Evans, le lun. 08 févr. 2021 10:59:01 -0800, a ecrit: > Samuel, how do qemu patches involving libslirp changes usually work? Well, we haven't had many yet actually :) > Should I have held off submitting the qemu patch until the libslirp > prerequisite has been added to qemu's tree, No, as this example shows, there are iterations that can happen on the qemu side before we have something we can commit, so better do both in parallel. I don't know what qemu people think about the slirp submodule: do qemu prefers to only track stable branchs, or would it be fine to track the master branch? I guess you'd prefer to have a slirp stable release you can depend on when releasing qemu, so perhaps better wait for a slirp release before bumping in qemu, just to be safe? Which doesn't mean avoiding submitting patchqueues that depend on it before that, better go in parallel. > or maybe I should include the libslirp patch so that people can at least apply > it (with a caveat saying the patch is already in libslirp.git) until it's added > to the qemu tree? Not sure what is best here. We at least need something so that people are not confused by the patchqueue calling some function that doesn't exist in the submodule yet. Samuel