| Message ID | cover.1317675329.git.mtosatti@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 10/03/2011 03:55 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > The following changes since commit d11cf8cc80d946dfc9a23597cd9a0bb1c487cfa7: > > etrax-dma: Remove bogus if statement (2011-10-03 10:20:13 +0200) > > are available in the git repository at: > git://github.com/avikivity/qemu.git uq/master Pulled. Thanks. Are ya'll planning on moving your repo back to kernel.org or sticking with github? Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Liu, Jinsong (1): > kvm: support TSC deadline MSR > > target-i386/cpu.h | 4 +++- > target-i386/kvm.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > target-i386/machine.c | 1 + > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >
On 10/10/2011 04:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 10/03/2011 03:55 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >> The following changes since commit >> d11cf8cc80d946dfc9a23597cd9a0bb1c487cfa7: >> >> etrax-dma: Remove bogus if statement (2011-10-03 10:20:13 +0200) >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> git://github.com/avikivity/qemu.git uq/master > > Pulled. Thanks. > Um, this had a comment about it regarding s/version bump/subsection/ > Are ya'll planning on moving your repo back to kernel.org or sticking > with github? We'll move back to kernel.org as soon as we sort around the keys.
On 10/10/2011 09:48 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 10/10/2011 04:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 10/03/2011 03:55 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >>> The following changes since commit d11cf8cc80d946dfc9a23597cd9a0bb1c487cfa7: >>> >>> etrax-dma: Remove bogus if statement (2011-10-03 10:20:13 +0200) >>> >>> are available in the git repository at: >>> git://github.com/avikivity/qemu.git uq/master >> >> Pulled. Thanks. >> > > Um, this had a comment about it regarding s/version bump/subsection/ Hrm, sorry about that. In the future, it would be helpful to explicitly withdrawal a PULL request. Do you want me to revert? FWIW, I think bumping the version is the right thing to do. Regards, Anthony Liguori > >> Are ya'll planning on moving your repo back to kernel.org or sticking with >> github? > > We'll move back to kernel.org as soon as we sort around the keys. >
On 10/10/2011 04:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > Hrm, sorry about that. In the future, it would be helpful to > explicitly withdrawal a PULL request. > > Do you want me to revert? We'll send the revert together with the new patch. > FWIW, I think bumping the version is the right thing to do. Why?
On 10/10/2011 10:00 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 10/10/2011 04:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> Hrm, sorry about that. In the future, it would be helpful to explicitly >> withdrawal a PULL request. >> >> Do you want me to revert? > > We'll send the revert together with the new patch. > >> FWIW, I think bumping the version is the right thing to do. > > Why? Because we still haven't fixed subsections. Juan's patches help but they can still result in sending bad data to and older QEMU that won't handle it properly. We need to figure out a proper fix for subsections, either Paolo's protocol change or moving subsections out to a detected section. Regards, Anthony Liguori >
On 10/10/2011 05:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 10/10/2011 10:00 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 10/10/2011 04:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> >>> Hrm, sorry about that. In the future, it would be helpful to explicitly >>> withdrawal a PULL request. >>> >>> Do you want me to revert? >> >> We'll send the revert together with the new patch. >> >>> FWIW, I think bumping the version is the right thing to do. >> >> Why? > > Because we still haven't fixed subsections. Juan's patches help but > they can still result in sending bad data to and older QEMU that won't > handle it properly. > > We need to figure out a proper fix for subsections, either Paolo's > protocol change or moving subsections out to a detected section. Ok. So bumping the version is only right if we don't fix subsections.
On 10/10/2011 10:24 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 10/10/2011 05:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 10/10/2011 10:00 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> On 10/10/2011 04:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> >>>> Hrm, sorry about that. In the future, it would be helpful to explicitly >>>> withdrawal a PULL request. >>>> >>>> Do you want me to revert? >>> >>> We'll send the revert together with the new patch. >>> >>>> FWIW, I think bumping the version is the right thing to do. >>> >>> Why? >> >> Because we still haven't fixed subsections. Juan's patches help but they can >> still result in sending bad data to and older QEMU that won't handle it properly. >> >> We need to figure out a proper fix for subsections, either Paolo's protocol >> change or moving subsections out to a detected section. > > Ok. So bumping the version is only right if we don't fix subsections. If we bump *any* version from 0.15 -> 1.0, then there's no point at all in having a subsection. If we break compatibility by using Paolo's new protocol, or doing subsections as sections, then there's no point in making it a subsection either. Regards, Anthony Liguori >
On 10/10/2011 05:36 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Ok. So bumping the version is only right if we don't fix subsections. > > > If we bump *any* version from 0.15 -> 1.0, then there's no point at > all in having a subsection. Did we bump versions of relevant devices? > If we break compatibility by using Paolo's new protocol, or doing > subsections as sections, then there's no point in making it a > subsection either. These are workaroundable. For example if you migrate 0.15 to 1.0 you start the destination with -old-subsection-format. Even if you don't, since subsections are rarely present, migration will succeed.
The following changes since commit d11cf8cc80d946dfc9a23597cd9a0bb1c487cfa7: etrax-dma: Remove bogus if statement (2011-10-03 10:20:13 +0200) are available in the git repository at: git://github.com/avikivity/qemu.git uq/master Liu, Jinsong (1): kvm: support TSC deadline MSR target-i386/cpu.h | 4 +++- target-i386/kvm.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ target-i386/machine.c | 1 + 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)