Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] add CCW indirect data access support

[Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 09/08/2017 01:19 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:03:00 +0200
> Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/08/2017 12:49 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:45:25 +0200
>>> Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> I'd do a separate "series" with both the kernel and the qemu part,
> stating the dependencies in the cover letter. Patchew will be unhappy,
> but I will be happier :)
> 

I can do that, for me you are definitely more important than Patchew.
The kernel module patch won't apply to the qemu tree so I can make
it a two patch series without being too associal.

>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
> 
> Unlikely to be of your doing, but wtf happened here?
> 

Exactly that. We are fighting it. Corporate cyber-security policies
are not exactly easy to fight.

>>>> 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).
> 
> Don't worry about merge conflicts, I need to figure them out myself
> anyway :)
> 

OK. Many thanks!

Halil