From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41743) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqH4A-00013Q-HK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:03:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqH40-0007kk-VC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:03:18 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:51263) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqH40-0007kE-Lg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:03:08 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v88B0e1L076551 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 07:03:07 -0400 Received: from e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.110]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2cupvq0u76-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:03:06 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:03:04 +0100 References: <20170905111645.18068-1-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <22830b0b-d05d-22de-271c-f0aa9bca6b64@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170908124905.52a8de36.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Halil Pasic Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:03:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170908124905.52a8de36.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <5a8f76e9-dfb9-9b19-26b9-99734d67efd7@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] add CCW indirect data access support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Dong Jia Shi , Pierre Morel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 09/08/2017 12:49 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:45:25 +0200 > Halil Pasic wrote: > >> The discussion seems to have settled down quite a bit. Since there weren't >> many complaints, I would like to opt for a v2 fixing the things pointed out >> during the review early next week (I was thinking Tuesday maybe some late birds >> are going to join in). >> >> @Connie >> ======== >> >> Does that sound reasonable or would you like more time for v1? > > No, sounds good. > Nod. >> >> What do you think, would it make more sense to omit or to keep the testing >> stuff for v2 (I mean patch 5 and the kernel module in the cover letter)? > > Can you maybe split this out? It makes it easier if you don't have to > go hunt in a cover letter. > I'm not sure, I know what you mean. Adding an out-of-tree linux kernel module to the qemu tree does not sound right, so I suppose I should not send it as a patch. Splitting out the test device patch (#5) does not sound like a good idea either, because it depends on patches #1 and #4. TL;DR Yes, I would be glad to if you tell me how. >> >> You probably haven't found the time to look at have a glance at "s390x/css: drop >> data-check in interpretation" (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_810995_&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=afpWhmOLStQASenyglRLvnb_ajvdRfgp4RlDrLw42F4&m=hshoLebtV7YUijl44CLPl5gP9F1HrXyCbL85tQhvA1w&s=SjTjqdOybbUj1pGpODNHdUfXBZBZU-iav6j10EEWYfQ&e= ). We >> have said it would make some things more straight forward here, and I could >> drop that ugly TODO comment. I think it's quite straight-forward, and I would >> not mind having a decision on it before v2 or putting it as preparation into >> v2. What do you prefer? > > It is marked for my attention. I don't know whether I find time to look > at it today, but probably early next week. > OK. Btw, I have a couple of other bug-fixes in the pipe. I think I will just send out a v1 series to get the discussion started (and for now ignore possible merge conflicts with my patches already on the list). Regards, Halil