From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43271) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fTLjh-0002mt-T7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 02:27:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fTLjg-0006wS-VL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 02:27:57 -0400 References: <1528879723-24675-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@redhat.com> <1528879723-24675-10-git-send-email-eric.auger@redhat.com> <8bf1bccc-b32a-9982-6123-b644c41a96d3@redhat.com> From: Auger Eric Message-ID: <33a3fa10-bf1a-45cd-73bd-403cbd8d4792@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:27:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8bf1bccc-b32a-9982-6123-b644c41a96d3@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 9/9] hw/arm/virt: Add virt-3.0 machine type List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laszlo Ersek , eric.auger.pro@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, peter.maydell@linaro.org Cc: wei@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, christoffer.dall@arm.com, zhaoshenglong@huawei.com Hi Laszlo, On 06/13/2018 11:05 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 06/13/18 10:48, Eric Auger wrote: > >> PATCH: merge of ECAM and VCPU extension >> - Laszlo reviewed the ECAM changes but I dropped his R-b >> due to the squash > > Was there any particular reason why the previous patch set (with only > the ECAM enlargement) couldn't be merged first? To be honest I'm not > super happy when my R-b is dropped for non-technical reasons; it seems > like wasted work for both of us. > > Obviously if there's a technical dependency or some other reason why > committing the ECAM enlargement in separation would be *wrong*, that's > different. Even in that case, wouldn't it be possible to keep the > initial virt-3.0 machtype addition as I reviewed it, and then add the > rest in an incremental patch? Sorry about that. My fear was about migration. We would have had 2 virt 3.0 machine models not supporting the same features. While bisecting migration we could have had the source using the high mem ECAM and the destination not supporting it. So I preferred to avoid this trouble by merging the 2 features in one patch. However I may have kept your R-b restricting its scope to the ECAM stuff. Thanks Eric > > Thanks, > Laszlo >