| Message ID | 1424894306-26740-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 26 February 2015 at 04:58, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > The following changes since commit 3d30395f7fb3315e4ecf0de4e48790e1326bbd47: > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/kraxel/tags/pull-usb-20150218-1' into staging (2015-02-25 11:54:15 +0000) > > are available in the git repository at: > > https://github.com/ehabkost/qemu.git tags/x86-pull-request > > for you to fetch changes up to de13197a38cf45c990802661a057f64a05426cbc: > > target-i386: Move APIC ID compatibility code to pc.c (2015-02-25 15:00:07 -0300) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Those patches were reviewed some time ago, and Paolo suggested I submit them > through my own tree. So, here is my first x86 pull request. :) > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Applied, thanks. -- PMM
Am 02.03.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 26 February 2015 at 04:58, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: >> The following changes since commit 3d30395f7fb3315e4ecf0de4e48790e1326bbd47: >> >> Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/kraxel/tags/pull-usb-20150218-1' into staging (2015-02-25 11:54:15 +0000) >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> >> https://github.com/ehabkost/qemu.git tags/x86-pull-request >> >> for you to fetch changes up to de13197a38cf45c990802661a057f64a05426cbc: >> >> target-i386: Move APIC ID compatibility code to pc.c (2015-02-25 15:00:07 -0300) >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Those patches were reviewed some time ago, and Paolo suggested I submit them >> through my own tree. So, here is my first x86 pull request. :) >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Applied, thanks. Why? You yourself had objections against 08/11, no? And replacement series are already on the list. Andreas
On 3 March 2015 at 00:26, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: > Am 02.03.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Peter Maydell: >> On 26 February 2015 at 04:58, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Those patches were reviewed some time ago, and Paolo suggested I submit them >>> through my own tree. So, here is my first x86 pull request. :) >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Applied, thanks. > > Why? You yourself had objections against 08/11, no? And replacement > series are already on the list. Because nobody followed up to this cover letter to say "don't apply this". I process pullreqs in first-in-first-out order and I rely on submitters (or others) letting me know if there's a reason not to apply something, and on people not submitting pullreqs including patches which have got negative review on list :-( -- PMM
Am 02.03.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 3 March 2015 at 00:26, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 02.03.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> On 26 February 2015 at 04:58, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Those patches were reviewed some time ago, and Paolo suggested I submit them >>>> through my own tree. So, here is my first x86 pull request. :) >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Applied, thanks. >> >> Why? You yourself had objections against 08/11, no? And replacement >> series are already on the list. > > Because nobody followed up to this cover letter to say "don't apply this". That's pretty much what I replied to 04/11, and I expected you to see that, in particular since you were on CC and chimed in. :/ I had some of Eduardo's alternative patches queued already and will look into fixing this mess... > I process pullreqs in first-in-first-out order and I rely on > submitters (or others) letting me know if there's a reason not to > apply something, and on people not submitting pullreqs including > patches which have got negative review on list :-( In this case it was Eduardo's first pull request, with overlap between qom-cpu and target-i386 responsibilities and Paolo having given an Rb for a full APIC movement series rather than the individual patches I pointed out. That requires a bit more review. Eduardo, I also notice that your tag luckily does not match the above description in your cover letter. That section is supposed to be filled in by git-request-pull from the tag, not hand-edited, and should be a summary of what changes the pull includes, not who reviewed it. You can place any additional comments above the generated template. Andreas
On 3 March 2015 at 01:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: > Am 02.03.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Peter Maydell: >> Because nobody followed up to this cover letter to say "don't apply this". > > That's pretty much what I replied to 04/11, and I expected you to see > that, in particular since you were on CC and chimed in. :/ I do mean literally "to the cover letter" there, since gmail doesn't thread emails :-( Since I'm just doing this pullreq processing in odd moments of free time at the moment I'm less likely to remember bits of context like that. > I had some of Eduardo's alternative patches queued already and will look > into fixing this mess... I can just revert the whole set if you like, since I haven't applied anything else on top yet. >> I process pullreqs in first-in-first-out order and I rely on >> submitters (or others) letting me know if there's a reason not to >> apply something, and on people not submitting pullreqs including >> patches which have got negative review on list :-( > > In this case it was Eduardo's first pull request, with overlap between > qom-cpu and target-i386 responsibilities and Paolo having given an Rb > for a full APIC movement series rather than the individual patches I > pointed out. That requires a bit more review. Yes, you're right in retrospect. -- PMM
Am 02.03.2015 um 17:22 schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 3 March 2015 at 01:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: >> I had some of Eduardo's alternative patches queued already and will look >> into fixing this mess... > > I can just revert the whole set if you like, since I haven't applied > anything else on top yet. On second thoughts after trying to revert individual bits, please do revert the full pull if still possible. Regards, Andreas
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:18:01PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 02.03.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Peter Maydell: > > On 3 March 2015 at 00:26, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: > >> Am 02.03.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Peter Maydell: > >>> On 26 February 2015 at 04:58, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> Those patches were reviewed some time ago, and Paolo suggested I submit them > >>>> through my own tree. So, here is my first x86 pull request. :) > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Applied, thanks. > >> > >> Why? You yourself had objections against 08/11, no? And replacement > >> series are already on the list. > > > > Because nobody followed up to this cover letter to say "don't apply this". > > That's pretty much what I replied to 04/11, and I expected you to see > that, in particular since you were on CC and chimed in. :/ > > I had some of Eduardo's alternative patches queued already and will look > into fixing this mess... I assumed the pull request were already going to be ignored considering all the replies. I didn't know an additional "please don't apply this" request was necessary, sorry. :( > > > I process pullreqs in first-in-first-out order and I rely on > > submitters (or others) letting me know if there's a reason not to > > apply something, and on people not submitting pullreqs including > > patches which have got negative review on list :-( > > In this case it was Eduardo's first pull request, with overlap between > qom-cpu and target-i386 responsibilities and Paolo having given an Rb > for a full APIC movement series rather than the individual patches I > pointed out. That requires a bit more review. > > Eduardo, I also notice that your tag luckily does not match the above > description in your cover letter. That section is supposed to be filled > in by git-request-pull from the tag, not hand-edited, and should be a > summary of what changes the pull includes, not who reviewed it. You can > place any additional comments above the generated template. Yeah, I edited that text in the e-mail message only, not to the tag description. It looks like I chose the wrong spot in the e-mail message to add my notes and I made it look like it was the tag description. Sorry again.
On 3 March 2015 at 02:10, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: > Am 02.03.2015 um 17:22 schrieb Peter Maydell: >> On 3 March 2015 at 01:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: >>> I had some of Eduardo's alternative patches queued already and will look >>> into fixing this mess... >> >> I can just revert the whole set if you like, since I haven't applied >> anything else on top yet. > > On second thoughts after trying to revert individual bits, please do > revert the full pull if still possible. I've now done this. IMPORTANT NOTE: if resubmitting a pull request which includes some of these patches, you need to make sure that it's been rebased on the revert-commit (0856579) or later, or otherwise ensure that all the commits in the pullreq are different (different commit hashes) from those in the reverted pullreq. Otherwise the merge will not apply them because in git's view of history those commit hashes are already present in master. (For a fuller explanation, see https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.txt) -- PMM
The following changes since commit 3d30395f7fb3315e4ecf0de4e48790e1326bbd47: Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/kraxel/tags/pull-usb-20150218-1' into staging (2015-02-25 11:54:15 +0000) are available in the git repository at: https://github.com/ehabkost/qemu.git tags/x86-pull-request for you to fetch changes up to de13197a38cf45c990802661a057f64a05426cbc: target-i386: Move APIC ID compatibility code to pc.c (2015-02-25 15:00:07 -0300) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Those patches were reviewed some time ago, and Paolo suggested I submit them through my own tree. So, here is my first x86 pull request. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Habkost (11): target-i386: Simplify listflags() function target-i386: Eliminate unnecessary get_cpuid_vendor() function target-i386: Move topology.h to include/hw/i386 target-i386: Rename cpu_x86_init() to cpu_x86_init_user() target-i386: Eliminate cpu_init() function target-i386: Simplify error handling on cpu_x86_init_user() target-i386: Move CPUX86State.cpuid_apic_id to X86CPU.apic_id linux-user: Check for cpu_init() errors target-i386: Set APIC ID using cpu_index on CONFIG_USER target-i386: Require APIC ID to be explicitly set before CPU realize target-i386: Move APIC ID compatibility code to pc.c hw/i386/pc.c | 35 +++++++ {target-i386 => include/hw/i386}/topology.h | 6 +- linux-user/main.c | 9 +- target-i386/cpu-qom.h | 1 + target-i386/cpu.c | 148 ++++++++++------------------ target-i386/cpu.h | 13 +-- target-i386/kvm.c | 2 +- tests/Makefile | 2 - tests/test-x86-cpuid.c | 2 +- 9 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 114 deletions(-) rename {target-i386 => include/hw/i386}/topology.h (97%)