[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] add CCW indirect data access support
From: |
Halil Pasic |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] add CCW indirect data access support |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:43:35 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 |
On 09/08/2017 01:19 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:03:00 +0200
> Halil Pasic <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On 09/08/2017 12:49 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:45:25 +0200
>>> Halil Pasic <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>>> What do you think, would it make more sense to omit or to keep the testing
>>>> stuff for v2 (I mean patch 5 and the kernel module in the cover letter)?
>>>
>>> Can you maybe split this out? It makes it easier if you don't have to
>>> go hunt in a cover letter.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure, I know what you mean. Adding an out-of-tree linux kernel
>> module to
>> the qemu tree does not sound right, so I suppose I should not send it as a
>> patch.
>>
>> Splitting out the test device patch (#5) does not sound like a good idea
>> either,
>> because it depends on patches #1 and #4.
>>
>> TL;DR Yes, I would be glad to if you tell me how.
>
> I'd do a separate "series" with both the kernel and the qemu part,
> stating the dependencies in the cover letter. Patchew will be unhappy,
> but I will be happier :)
>
I can do that, for me you are definitely more important than Patchew.
The kernel module patch won't apply to the qemu tree so I can make
it a two patch series without being too associal.
>>
>>>>
>>>> You probably haven't found the time to look at have a glance at
>>>> "s390x/css: drop
>>>> data-check in interpretation"
>>>> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_810995_&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=afpWhmOLStQASenyglRLvnb_ajvdRfgp4RlDrLw42F4&m=hshoLebtV7YUijl44CLPl5gP9F1HrXyCbL85tQhvA1w&s=SjTjqdOybbUj1pGpODNHdUfXBZBZU-iav6j10EEWYfQ&e=
>>>> ). We
>
> Unlikely to be of your doing, but wtf happened here?
>
Exactly that. We are fighting it. Corporate cyber-security policies
are not exactly easy to fight.
>>>> have said it would make some things more straight forward here, and I could
>>>> drop that ugly TODO comment. I think it's quite straight-forward, and I
>>>> would
>>>> not mind having a decision on it before v2 or putting it as preparation
>>>> into
>>>> v2. What do you prefer?
>>>
>>> It is marked for my attention. I don't know whether I find time to look
>>> at it today, but probably early next week.
>>>
>>
>> OK. Btw, I have a couple of other bug-fixes in the pipe. I think I will just
>> send out a v1 series to get the discussion started (and for now ignore
>> possible
>> merge conflicts with my patches already on the list).
>
> Don't worry about merge conflicts, I need to figure them out myself
> anyway :)
>
OK. Many thanks!
Halil
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/5] s390x/ccs: add ccw-tester emulated device, (continued)
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/5] s390x/css: support ccw IDA, Halil Pasic, 2017/09/05
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] add CCW indirect data access support, Halil Pasic, 2017/09/08