From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MEfhU-0002Sb-B7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:31:56 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MEfhT-0002S7-ED for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:31:55 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34668 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MEfhT-0002S2-9s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:31:55 -0400 Received: from lechat.rtp-net.org ([88.191.19.38]:44742) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MEfhS-000548-PM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:31:55 -0400 From: Arnaud Patard (Rtp) Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] check for utimensat() availability on configure References: <1244582792-30589-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> <1244582792-30589-3-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> <87ocsxoye4.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org> <20090610141255.GZ18045@blackpad> <20090610160742.GB12221@kos.to> <20090610162047.GA7776@poweredge.glommer> <874ouonj9i.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org> <20090610165640.GC7776@poweredge.glommer> <20090610220540.GE23525@kos.to> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:33:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20090610220540.GE23525@kos.to> (Riku Voipio's message of "Thu\, 11 Jun 2009 01\:05\:40 +0300") Message-ID: <87vdn3mapj.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Riku Voipio Cc: Glauber Costa , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Riku Voipio writes: Hi, > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 01:56:40PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: >> > >> because mainline qemu is lacking a linux-user maintainer. >> > > I believe if you can guarantee (through proper testing) the stability of maemo >> > > tree, and poke for review the specific parts that may affect the rest ot the world, >> > > then it should be fine to just pull it. > >> > At least, this would be better than what we have currently. Please note >> > also that "proper testing" is hard imho. It depends also on host/guest >> > systems used to test. > >> it is hard for everybody, not just qemu user. Since you guys are the main >> user of it, if you are happy with the state of things, and it is isolated enough from >> the rest of qemu not to break it very frequently, we should be fine. > > Generally we use tests from ltp testsuite since they have nice tests for most > syscalls. However, the testing is not quite systematic, an particularry combinations > of host/target glibc appear to create a mess.. Do you have a list of the syscalls/ltp testcases you're testing ? I've made a list, only wants to compare :) > > That said, the changes are highly contained under linux-user/, in the current tree > there is only one patch (GUEST_BASE support) that touches outside parts. > >> > Having an "official" maintainer means having someone being able to give >> > his final word if people disagree on how to fix a bug. > >> One of you should step up and do it. > > If nobody objects, I can. I bet you have more time than me to work on qemu so that's fine. Nevertheless, I can provide help if needed. Arnaud