From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58044) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TgckY-00086r-LP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:48:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TgckX-0007Z5-Af for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:48:30 -0500 Received: from greensocs.com ([87.106.252.221]:59900 helo=s15328186.onlinehome-server.info) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TgckX-0007Yz-4A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:48:29 -0500 Message-ID: <50C0B038.7030201@greensocs.com> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:48:24 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?S09OUkFEIEZyw6lkw6lyaWM=?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1354631742-4693-1-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> <1354631742-4693-7-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> <50BF82ED.4070205@suse.de> <50C063A5.6050101@greensocs.com> <50C06B0C.7040901@suse.de> <50C0A489.1030106@greensocs.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 6/6] virtio-blk : Refactor virtio-blk. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, e.voevodin@samsung.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= On 06/12/2012 15:21, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 December 2012 13:58, KONRAD Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric wrote: >> On 06/12/2012 11:13, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> It can't just be a command line alias, or we will break migration. >>> It has to be a simple device that composes together the virtio-pci >>> and virtio-blk devices, plus legacy support for properties and >>> migration state, I think. >> Can we do virtio-blk refactoring and virtio-blk-pci at the same time f= or not >> breaking anything ? > Not breaking things is a key part of the requirements here. Agree with that. > It's ok to say "I haven't converted virtio-net or the s390 > transport in this patchset and therefore they are broken" as > an initial RFC (because we can look at how PCI/blk is done > and check it works before we expand the same thing out to > other transports/devices). But you need to show how the > virtio-blk / virtio-pci refactoring works and leaves you with > a virtio-blk-pci that isn't broken (either at the end or at > any step along the way). And if virtio-blk-pci is broken can we refactor it in the same "patch" ? > > -- PMM >