Benoît Canet <benoit.ca...@irqsave.net> writes: > The Tuesday 30 Sep 2014 à 22:08:12 (+0300), Boris Sukholitko wrote : >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Benoît Canet >> <benoit.ca...@irqsave.net> wrote: >> > The Friday 26 Sep 2014 à 18:19:55 (+0300), Boris Sukholitko wrote : >> >> This patchset is a small rebase of the 9p live migration patches >> >> made a year >> >> ago by Benoit Canet. >> >> >> >> See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-04/msg02190.html >> >> for the previous thread. >> >> >> >> I took the liberty to drop the second patch (waiting for completion of 9p >> >> operations) as it wasn't working in my testing. >> > >> > It's probable that the second patch has bitrot but I remember I was asked >> > to >> > write it for a meaningfull reason. >> >> AFAICT, the reason was to drain requests queue before saving the state. >> >> Unfortunately, releasing BQL haven't led to the callbacks being executed. >> Therefore deadlock ensued. >> >> > Maybe you should give it a bit more love to resurect it properly. >> > >> >> I probably should. Still, IMHO, the two patches work good enough >> to deserve merging on their own right :) > > I am afraid nobody will want to merge a patchset where there is a > theorical potential bug. > > It should work as well on paper as on silicon.
Imperfect or incomplete patches *may* be acceptable when A. they strictly improve things, and B. their shortcomings are written down. Example of a strict improvement: before the patch, live migration always fails. After the patch, it succeeds most of the time, but can still fail in certain states. Counter-example: before the patch, live migration always fails. After the patch, it succeeds, but can corrupt data in certain states.
