From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50251) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bRp2D-0004nW-Aj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:11:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bRp2C-00017P-6r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:11:41 -0400 References: <1469182567-3114-1-git-send-email-wangww.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <57958B22.40507@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160725143458.GC14676@stefanha-x1.localdomain> From: Max Reitz Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 01:11:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160725143458.GC14676@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CUCWMI3AeqkbUnHE9LXH4NL1rJtte59rc" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v22 00/10] Block replication for continuous checkpoints List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi , Jeff Cody , Kevin Wolf Cc: Wang WeiWei , qemu devel , qemu block , Fam Zheng , Paolo Bonzini , John Snow , Eric Blake , Markus Armbruster , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Dong Eddie , Jiang Yunhong , zhanghailiang , Gonglei , Wen Congyang , Changlong Xie This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --CUCWMI3AeqkbUnHE9LXH4NL1rJtte59rc From: Max Reitz To: Stefan Hajnoczi , Jeff Cody , Kevin Wolf Cc: Wang WeiWei , qemu devel , qemu block , Fam Zheng , Paolo Bonzini , John Snow , Eric Blake , Markus Armbruster , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Dong Eddie , Jiang Yunhong , zhanghailiang , Gonglei , Wen Congyang , Changlong Xie Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 00/10] Block replication for continuous checkpoints References: <1469182567-3114-1-git-send-email-wangww.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <57958B22.40507@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160725143458.GC14676@stefanha-x1.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20160725143458.GC14676@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 25.07.2016 16:34, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:44:34AM +0800, Changlong Xie wrote: >> COLO block is the necessary prerequisite of COLO framework and COLO ne= twork, >> what are blocked by these patchsets now. >> >> Since v19, Stefan said he had reviewed most part of this patchsets. So= , this >> series *REALLY* need more comments from all of you. >> >> I've ping so many times, but no response until now. All i have to do i= s >> rebase them to the lastest code. >> >> Do you have time to review this? Any response would be appreciate. >=20 > There has been no review activity for a long time. You have been > patient and addressed issues that I raised back when I reviewed the > series. Both you and I have pinged maintainers numerous times. It's > not fair to keep this out of tree at this stage. >=20 > Since no one else seems to care I suggest rebasing/testing a final time= > with the following changes: >=20 > 1. Update the MAINTAINERS for new files you are adding. > 2. Make the feature optional in ./configure so distros that don't feel > comfortable shipping it yet can easily disable it: >=20 > $ ./configure --disable-replication && make -j4 >=20 > Then I will merge it if there are no comments. I'd be completely happy with this. I only had minor comments, nothing critical, but mind you, I have not looked at the series in depth. I know it's my own fault for not doing so, but I did actually review the series back in v2, but I remember that it was rather difficult to delve into it (because this series is just part of a big picture) and I couldn't keep up with the following revisions, so I fell out of the loop and felt that you and Eric took over reviewing. I find the documentation rather hard to understand (but maybe that's just me) and the fact that it's in the middle of this series instead of at the start doesn't really help. Because of this, I don't feel quite comfortable taking this through my tree. That would be a different story if every patch had an R-b from you or Eric, but they don't. But that said, my not-so-deep review did not result in me finding any way how these patches would do harm to qemu. Therefore, if we do have a maintainer for them, I'd be completely fine with them getting merged. Max --CUCWMI3AeqkbUnHE9LXH4NL1rJtte59rc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEvBAEBCAAZBQJXlpyfEhxtcmVpdHpAcmVkaGF0LmNvbQAKCRA7sUIC6DisrUQJ CACheHvRWxREkBCz12ERNmtAuyb9Avwff3eLYvHsBdIXGLoPng3Y5rGEhpXgpxgS BltqIx+LqsNU8zwa2yyVFBN5RRngPwcxR9z7alkJyKIWVilOGtAQeQvLfRFkkVy0 pAjxXH5QJ6+RcUJe/wH2Hu5U8dFgJ7QMpc2RW4ZZC+y129Ppud7xxD3preAyBMjc 9gXCGKHfrdalxFII073/fF6gMQYyM9JUNq9EoNwHTsAsh0mOQleJAOY2iFnA3dH5 bLbrtOyKwlkm3teEWjuCETB62PTWc4FoNRjJTOPUqzyRv5CpyJ+/Rkq1v4gomWdm fIKiGhQ3pmmHK5aiTYu3GAlg =Q8Kg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CUCWMI3AeqkbUnHE9LXH4NL1rJtte59rc--