Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/17] ppc: preparing pnv landing

[David Gibson]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:11:31AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 01:39 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 05:56:23PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> This is a first mini-serie of patches adding support for new ppc SPRs.
> >> They were taken from Ben's larger patchset adding the ppc powernv
> >> platform and they should already be useful for the pseries guest
> >> migration.
> >>
> >> Initial patches come from :
> >>
> >>    https://github.com/ozbenh/qemu/commits/powernv
> >>
> >> The changes are mostly due to the rebase on Dave's 2.6 branch:
> >>
> >>    https://github.com/dgibson/qemu/commits/ppc-for-2.6
> >>
> >> A couple more are bisect and checkpatch fixes and finally some patches
> >> were merge to reduce the noise.
> >>
> >>       
> >>
> >> The patchset is also available here: 
> >>
> >>    https://github.com/legoater/qemu/commits/for-2.6
> >>
> >> It was quickly tested with a pseries guest using KVM and TCG.
> > 
> > Hmm.. do these all fix bugs with migration, or only some of them?
> 
> Probably only some. 
> 
> Initially, Thomas gave a shorter list which I expanded to a larger one 
> because of dependencies between patches and I didn't want to change too
> much what Ben had sent. You had also reviewed a few.
> 
> > The relevance is that things to fix migration should go into 2.6, but
> > preparation work for powernv that doesn't fix bug shouldn't really be
> > going in now, after the soft freeze and will need to wait for 2.7.
> 
> OK. I will rework and keep the rest for 2.7. 

So, I'm ok with including (low risk) patches that aren't directly
relevant to 2.6 if they're prereqs for patches that are relevant to
2.6.  After all, reworking the patches isn't risk free either.  Please
mention why these patches are being included in the commit messages
though.

> Thomas, thanks for the review. I have identified a few things I need 
> to work on but may be, the patchset is still too large for 2.6 ?

It's not really a question of being too large, it's that I'm nervous
about applying patches which touch the core translation code
(e.g. fixes to HV mode tests) during soft freeze if they're not
addressing a bug that's relevant to 2.6.

-- 
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature