Patchwork [0/1,PULL] qemu-kvm.git uq/master queue

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Marcelo Tosatti
Date Oct. 3, 2011, 8:55 p.m.
Message ID <cover.1317675329.git.mtosatti@redhat.com>
Download mbox
Permalink /patch/117506/
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://github.com/avikivity/qemu.git uq/master

Comments

Marcelo Tosatti - Oct. 3, 2011, 8:55 p.m.
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(-)
Anthony Liguori - Oct. 10, 2011, 2:41 p.m.
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(-)
>
>
Avi Kivity - Oct. 10, 2011, 2:48 p.m.
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.
Anthony Liguori - Oct. 10, 2011, 2:55 p.m.
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.
>
Avi Kivity - Oct. 10, 2011, 3 p.m.
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?
Anthony Liguori - Oct. 10, 2011, 3:12 p.m.
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

>
Avi Kivity - Oct. 10, 2011, 3:24 p.m.
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.
Anthony Liguori - Oct. 10, 2011, 3:36 p.m.
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

>
Avi Kivity - Oct. 10, 2011, 3:41 p.m.
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.