From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mm2ES-0004Kf-T9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:15:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mm2EN-0004F2-2c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:15:52 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45696 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mm2EM-0004Eq-T5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:15:46 -0400 Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]:22304) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mm2EM-0000YO-Dc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:15:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4AAA1550.6090002@siemens.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:16:00 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20090902074905.GB25711@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <20090909121817.GA21997@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <4AA7A6EC.10907@codemonkey.ws> <20090910070336.GD3351@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4AA90592.7080100@codemonkey.ws> <4AA90F7F.2030709@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4AA90F7F.2030709@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] commit e09a5267 (was: [PATCH] [RESEND2] Qemu unmaintained?) List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Amit Shah , Bernhard Kauer , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/10/2009 04:56 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> The problem is patch volume. We often see hundreds of patches a day. >> If typing a mail for each patch takes 2 minutes, that's potentially >> hours spent just on sending these mails. >> > > You exaggerate. The average rate is 13 patches per calendar day. The > bulk of the patches are in patchsets which can be acked as a set, not > once per patch. > >> What I really need is some way to automatically generate these >> notifications. It's pretty easy to send a mail when a patch enters >> the queue but it's more difficult to send a mail when a patch is >> removed from the queue via a rebase. Often times, I remove patches >> from the queue simply because I'm not the right path for the patches >> to be committed from (like linux-user). > > I think more per-patch attention is needed, not less, for example see > this commit: > > commit e09a5267adf0af25b55d2abaf06e288b2d9537ea > Author: Dustin Kirkland > Date: Thu Sep 3 12:31:33 2009 -0500 > > qemu-kvm: fix segfault when running kvm without /dev/kvm, falling > back to non-accelerated mode > > qemu-kvm: fix segfault when running kvm without /dev/kvm, falling back > to non-accelerated mode > > We're seeing segfaults on systems without access to /dev/kvm. It > looks like the global kvm_allowed is being set just a little too late > in vl.c. This patch moves the kvm initialization a bit higher in the > vl.c main, just after options processing, and solves the segfaults. > We're carrying this patch in Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha. Please apply > upstream, or advise if and why this might not be the optimal solution. > > Signed-off-by: Dustin Kirkland > > Move the kvm_init() call a bit higher to fix a segfault when > /dev/kvm is not available. The kvm_allowed global needs > to be set correctly a little earlier. > > Signed-off-by: Dustin Kirkland > Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori > > There are many examples like this in the tree which is a pity. Others > include parts of an email conversation. I'd like history to look better > than this. Even worse, I think this patch does not belong into upstream as it fixed a qemu-kvm-only bug. I think this was caused by Dustin CC'ing qemu, right? Did anyone test properly if the change has no side effects on upstream kvm (which has a different initialization scheme)? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux