On 03/01/2014 02:57 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 28.02.2014 16:08, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy: >> On 03/01/2014 02:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> Il 28/02/2014 16:03, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto: >>>> On 02/28/2014 02:04 AM, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 15:59 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>>> Il 27/02/2014 15:39, Marcel Apfelbaum ha scritto: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Each of them highlights one of the two aspects that, in my opinion, >>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>> QOM interesting (respectively, unification of interfaces and the >>>>>>>>> containment tree). >>>>>>> I was planning to tackle the replacement of the machine from a container >>>>>>> to an actual object too, however this patch conflicts with my >>>>>>> series because I already have a QOM Machine object created *always* >>>>>>> and this patch adds another object *sometimes*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this patch's functionality in use yet? Any idea how to merge those >>>>>>> ideas? >>>>>> >>>>>> pseries simply wants to make /machine implement the FWPathProvider >>>>>> interface. As long as you have a way for boards to specify a TypeInfo >>>>>> for /machine, this patch will not get in the way. >>>>> Thanks Paolo! I'll be aware not to brake this functionality. >>>>> Marcel >>>> >>>> What is the outcome of this discussion for the patches I posted? Do I have >>>> to wait till you finish that machine properties rework and repost or...? >>> >>> Your patches are fine. > > I disputed that in this case and asked for a code change in qdev code > either not creating the container and/or asserting that that code path > is not hit. > >>> Who gets in first, wins. The other, rebases. :) > > Negative, qemu.git is not a tombola. If there's known issues they need > to be fixed before merging. But yes, when there's two "good" approaches > then it's a matter of merge order, which ideally should involve > communication rather than competition among maintainers. Because the > pull that does not apply then gets bounced by Peter. > >> Ok. Understood. Wait and rebase and repost and repeat. Ok ;) Thanks. > > A problem here and elsewhere in your series is that it's a mix of > changes to generic code and ppc code, with the cover letter indicating > it's a ppc series. ppc series I usually leave for Alex to review, and > Alex is on travels for a few more weeks to come.
I still do not entirely understand. In this series, 1/6 is not really platform dependent but it is still for Alex to review? 4/6 is about hw/net/spapr_llan.c which is not in hw/ppc/ so it does not have to be Alex, no? 5/6 is about hw/ppc/spapr_vio.c which is in hw/ppc/ but it is rather QOM than PPC - still, Alex? If anyone RB'd or Ack'ed any of those, would it help? Would it help if I split my patchsets into two (ppc and independent) and post them separately? Or it always Alex and since I screwed up in the beginning (I know I did, and I probably keep screwing, sorry for that), I am in very low priority queue forever? > So for those of your patches that I'm aware of - -cpu, FWPathProvider > and this /machine most likely I will pick up the generic parts for the > QOM devices tree after having tested some more corner cases, to get them > into 2.0. > > For ppc-next I know that Alex is strictly running a virt-test testsuite > and whenever something in his queue is broken somewhere, the whole queue > gets delayed until the fault is found and fixed or dropped. -- Alexey
