From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51291) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XCq2j-0006Q8-Ke for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:05:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XCq2e-0000a8-5E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:05:13 -0400 Received: from [2001:41d0:8:2b42::1] (port=34325 helo=greensocs.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XCq2e-0000Zb-0A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:05:08 -0400 Message-ID: <53DA3F02.4080607@greensocs.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:05:06 +0200 From: Frederic Konrad MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20140717110153.8352.80175.stgit@PASHA-ISP> <53D14707.7080509@redhat.com> <2596.37912172384$1406533875@news.gmane.org> <53D62210.9060903@redhat.com> <000101cfabca$07016870$15043950$@Dovgaluk@ispras.ru> <53D8B9F8.7090804@redhat.com> <53D8F0EE.1090706@greensocs.com> <53D8F491.3040202@redhat.com> <53D9065B.103@greensocs.com> In-Reply-To: <53D9065B.103@greensocs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 00/49] Series short description List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , Pavel Dovgaluk , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, real@ispras.ru, batuzovk@ispras.ru On 30/07/2014 16:51, Frederic Konrad wrote: > On 30/07/2014 15:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 30/07/2014 15:19, Frederic Konrad ha scritto: >>>> Start by submitting only the icount-based >>>> implementation, the other can come later. >>>> >>>> Paolo >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I think that's actually our implementation cover no? >>> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-07/msg00677.html) >> Yes, Pavel's series covers the missing bits of yours AFAIU. >> >> Paolo > > I think that our first patch set part (icount fixes and icount based=20 > clock) is fully reviewed and can be upstreamed, > but since the reverse execution mechanism itself is very similar=20 > between our series and Pavels, while Pavel=E2=80=99s > set goes further in terms of addressing IO replay, I suggest Pavel=20 > uses our icount counter with his mechanism. > > In addition maybe this series can be split eg: > the migration related series/the mechanism itself so it will be easier=20 > for me to review your mechanism? > > Thanks, > Fred > Is that making sense? Fred