From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52845) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WzRbP-0005Yd-0X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:21:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WzRbH-0007Da-3h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:21:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42517) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WzRbG-0007DQ-S5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:21:31 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5OELT92026406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:21:29 -0400 Message-ID: <53A98967.3030003@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:21:27 +0200 From: Laszlo Ersek MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1401392201-29988-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com> <1401392201-29988-3-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com> <538794A9.1000906@redhat.com> <53879BDB.8050403@redhat.com> <5387A118.5090304@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5387A118.5090304@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] char: report frontend open/closed state in 'query-chardev' List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 05/29/14 23:05, Eric Blake wrote: > On 05/29/2014 02:43 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >>>> +# backend (eg. with the chardev=... option) is in open or >>>> +# closed state (since 2.2) >>> >>> Why 2.2? Are you saying it is too late to make the 2.1 soft freeze? >> >> I thought that reviewers would immediately question the direction of the >> patchset (ie. monitor events + new query field), and not just suggest >> tweaks; so 2.2 seemed safer. Perhaps I can make it till the 2.1 soft >> freeze (June 17th), but that depends (as I've learned now) on Wenchao's >> series too. > > Actually, I think your series and Wenchao's are mostly orthogonal - > either could go in first, and it's just fine if one hits 2.1 while the > other waits till 2.2. It's just a matter of code churn, where getting > both in means whoever is second has to consider the code added in the > meantime (either your series is tweaked to use the qapi generation, or > Wenchao's series is tweaked to convert "one" more event). I'm thinking about resuming work on this. Wenchao's series has been applied (ends at commit 75175173). We're between soft and hard freeze now. Should I aim at 2.1 or 2.2? Thanks! Laszlo