Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] pseries: Use new hook to correct reset sequence

[Andreas Färber]

Am 02.08.2012 21:40, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> Andreas Färber <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> Am 02.08.2012 20:29, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> Andreas Färber <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> Anthony was favoring moving reset code out of machines and expressed
>>>> dislike for looping through CPUs, which my above patch took into
>>>> account. The ordering issue between CPU and devices is still unsolved 
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> Some on-list comments from Anthony would be nice, since we are moving
>>>> into opposing directions here - having the sPAPR machine be more in
>>>> control vs. moving code away from the PC machine into target-i386 CPU
>>>> and/or common CPU code.
>>>
>>> I already commented on the first patch because I had a feeling you'd
>>> post something like this ;-)
>>
>> I was not cc'ed. :(

I did read the reply wrt reset controller chip btw in case you meant
that one, but it doesn't discuss QEMU API at all, only wording changes
to the commit message.

>>> Regarding reset:
>>>
>>> 1) Devices should implement DeviceState::reset()
>>>
>>> 2) If a device doesn't implement ::reset(), it should call
>>> qemu_register_reset()
>>>
>>> 3) Reset should propagate through the device model, starting with the
>>> top-level machine which is logically what's plugged into the wall and
>>> is the source of power in the first place.
>>
>> So you changed your opinion over night?
> 
> No.

Ben's cover letter indicated "as discussed with Anthony on a call",
suggesting to me that you agree to the solution presented here! Bad
choice of words then.

>> I wanted to keep the reset callbacks in the machine. You applied a patch
>> breaking that pattern and argued you wanted to move reset code *out* of
>> the machine. Now you say the machine should *propagate* reset. Sorry,
>> that's unlogical to me...
> 
> You're not listening carefully.  Just a friendly piece of advise--
> instead of sending knee-jerk emails, spend some time going back and
> re-reading these discussions.
> 
> This has been discussed literally to death now for years.

Mind you, you are communicating with non-native speakers and I had to
look up "knee-jerk". If you have a point to make, do it clearly. Your
replies have been anything but helpful to me.

You find my emails knee-jerked, I find your applying Igor's second patch
just before the 1.2 freeze a knee-jerk reaction. Especially considering
that you apply that series but not his earlier initfn one that did not
get objections any more. Two opinions.

Now, I have close to 20,000 unread qemu-devel mails alone. If you have
time to re-read the discussions from several years then I wonder why you
are not processing more uncontroversial patches and PULLs and replying
to mails. Otherwise don't ask people to do what you don't humanly manage
yourself.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg