From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81754C30653 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:03:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sPKDu-0006fe-Ai; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:01:58 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sPKDs-0006dD-J9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:01:56 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sPKDq-00079h-1b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:01:56 -0400 Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a7523f0870cso57314166b.3 for ; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 04:01:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1720090909; x=1720695709; darn=nongnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=8IRujJa0YGI2skihfxnvtYi7CNPp9baETM0WneDoFTg=; b=ORzSgrTwKYBJD+wVLN2LC8G+AIMrvbN/k3+r/faA8oVQn4Boh5btDA/SWFd9Z0BCb4 ID6Tv1Rfo+0NxnTY5Kn6gL2GTEcmlFTvPWt+82gHp3FyARU1NLXAcL+7pQsBrL+RFsY2 l3/qhVENTlJEstJAoFDoNF/SB20/GoeqN2LAjYIK9oPrWQkkLlLc9hxQHgMWrOfB6D2T DggngLs9yYqkw4PO5mCQjJa/9lU6t6NfjAc4ctqmt5i3KFIwHTTI+av/Sa9nRIRcdBXL NW0ShtwitL4EY4qW8vip5WhpoLucHW56u21nLQlRK2kE9SJuVHcwILwMzKDSZ1XzZmGS UeCw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1720090909; x=1720695709; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8IRujJa0YGI2skihfxnvtYi7CNPp9baETM0WneDoFTg=; b=tuRPL9/cf0HBfhw3y7EOursYoClZ0/zNLpUnqnI0bsyNwNKbRhU2i7hldmyGWGu7nJ cyKf3Nj4nDcA6za2X77u6YvuPPsJkc0lmlcThgH1/NZ+WjiWG0TyW6qnhkzgKOc0Oie8 rw5BYIDBuQxeWJlPgMgMW8lfmTz4QZh4khgPCiU8g+uxuOmORDuZE7YRktp/HKQADwLs nuE/Wjadt+8o3AbKaTYLQ+P/Zovg7jjth5xtcRBAkJFSftJ9GKzy8IlmtgQrwLgLVavF ijfAjz7AmPlrX/PD2/SRbBwCX4glva7zQ6be4wIyGFQGaCPwAePtUanJJWr0T0pKdDMX ZovQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVUQUbU5LXv4yn/23uiuAKw/NRoB0iyOD6iDU/6gObHuB/m2pGfsOybRev7x8DgpJm7FUnNUdk/fwSRmiY95tBxbvRi71g= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwxpvH81vIqs5jkqCfIiAQlkevsM57DiDnKgqEiAog9EUetLVWq bRD5E6UzyfWEaBfb9rwBNk/NiORMb2czbr4WiH3KPyfkt+I4fjHkp31ESlsAXFw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGbkAybDoAeJIH0ZRHO2Tm4kdR9mUpmFuysZneFEk9Z6MlVxmFa7Nzx1+sEx+wRWFMmKiACcw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3f8e:b0:a6e:f7ee:b1fa with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a77ba7225d4mr93028766b.72.1720090908342; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 04:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from draig.lan ([85.9.250.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-a72ab0b84f7sm587442066b.224.2024.07.04.04.01.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 04 Jul 2024 04:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from draig (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by draig.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86855F839; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:01:46 +0100 (BST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Alex_Benn=C3=A9e?= To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Daniel Henrique Barboza , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ajones@ventanamicro.com, Thomas Huth Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] system/vl.c: parse all -accel options In-Reply-To: (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:43:40 +0200") References: <20240701133038.1489043-1-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> <20240701133038.1489043-3-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> <5e0c57ef-d06d-4cdc-8d5b-3adec8263c5f@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:01:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87a5ixo1yd.fsf@draig.linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::630; envelope-from=alex.bennee@linaro.org; helo=mail-ej1-x630.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Paolo Bonzini writes: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 4:34=E2=80=AFPM Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 > > In principle, a Reviewed-by tag is just stating that you don't know of > any issues that would prevent the patch being included. However, as a > frequent participant to the project, your Reviewed-by tag carries some > weight and, to some extent, it is also a statement that you understand > the area being modified. A Reviewed-by from an experienced > contributor may even imply that you could take the patch in one of > your pull requests. (*) That makes it even more important to > understand the area. I think you are attaching a little too much weight to a r-b tag here as no one was suggesting the patch go in via a different tree. Ultimately the maintainer can always NACK a reviewed patch.=20 > I would expect that anyone with an understanding of command line > parsing would know 1) what -accel kvm -accel tcg does, and 2) what > .merge_lists does; and this would be enough to flag an issue > preventing the patch from being included. Maybe more useful would be re-wording the comment: /* Merge multiple uses of option into a single list? */ to be explicit about its behaviour.=20 > To be clear, I don't expect reviews to be perfect. But in this case > I'm speaking up because the patch is literally a one line declarative > change, and the only way to say "I've reviewed it" is by understanding > the deeper effects of that line. I think that's a fairly subjective requirement for something that generally we can always use more of. I encourage people to review all around the code base to get familiar with new sub-systems. I don't think we should be dissuading people from exploring outside their silos. That simple one liners can trip people up says more about the code than the reviewer. I sympathise with Philippe here who's current brief takes him around our large and interconnected code base more than most. > > Also, I think it's fair that the submitter didn't spot the problem; > it's okay to send out broken patches, that's part of the learning > experience. :) > > Paolo > > (*) as opposed to Acked-by, where your review probably has been more > conceptual than technical, and that you don't really want to take the > patch in a pull request. > > > Paolo --=20 Alex Benn=C3=A9e Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro