Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v22 00/10] Block replication for continuous checkpoints

[Max Reitz]

On 25.07.2016 16:34, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:44:34AM +0800, Changlong Xie wrote:
>> COLO block is the necessary prerequisite of COLO framework and COLO network,
>> what are blocked by these patchsets now.
>>
>> Since v19, Stefan said he had reviewed most part of this patchsets. So, this
>> series *REALLY* need more comments from all of you.
>>
>> I've ping so many times, but no response until now. All i have to do is
>> rebase them to the lastest code.
>>
>> Do you have time to review this?  Any response would be appreciate.
> 
> There has been no review activity for a long time.  You have been
> patient and addressed issues that I raised back when I reviewed the
> series.  Both you and I have pinged maintainers numerous times.  It's
> not fair to keep this out of tree at this stage.
> 
> Since no one else seems to care I suggest rebasing/testing a final time
> with the following changes:
> 
> 1. Update the MAINTAINERS for new files you are adding.
> 2. Make the feature optional in ./configure so distros that don't feel
>    comfortable shipping it yet can easily disable it:
> 
>      $ ./configure --disable-replication && make -j4
> 
> Then I will merge it if there are no comments.

I'd be completely happy with this.

I only had minor comments, nothing critical, but mind you, I have not
looked at the series in depth.

I know it's my own fault for not doing so, but I did actually review the
series back in v2, but I remember that it was rather difficult to delve
into it (because this series is just part of a big picture) and I
couldn't keep up with the following revisions, so I fell out of the loop
and felt that you and Eric took over reviewing.

I find the documentation rather hard to understand (but maybe that's
just me) and the fact that it's in the middle of this series instead of
at the start doesn't really help.

Because of this, I don't feel quite comfortable taking this through my
tree. That would be a different story if every patch had an R-b from you
or Eric, but they don't.

But that said, my not-so-deep review did not result in me finding any
way how these patches would do harm to qemu. Therefore, if we do have a
maintainer for them, I'd be completely fine with them getting merged.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature