Hi Laszlo, On 06/13/2018 11:05 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 06/13/18 10:48, Eric Auger wrote: > >> PATCH: merge of ECAM and VCPU extension >> - Laszlo reviewed the ECAM changes but I dropped his R-b >> due to the squash > > Was there any particular reason why the previous patch set (with only > the ECAM enlargement) couldn't be merged first? To be honest I'm not > super happy when my R-b is dropped for non-technical reasons; it seems > like wasted work for both of us. > > Obviously if there's a technical dependency or some other reason why > committing the ECAM enlargement in separation would be *wrong*, that's > different. Even in that case, wouldn't it be possible to keep the > initial virt-3.0 machtype addition as I reviewed it, and then add the > rest in an incremental patch?
Sorry about that. My fear was about migration. We would have had 2 virt 3.0 machine models not supporting the same features. While bisecting migration we could have had the source using the high mem ECAM and the destination not supporting it. So I preferred to avoid this trouble by merging the 2 features in one patch. However I may have kept your R-b restricting its scope to the ECAM stuff. Thanks Eric > > Thanks, > Laszlo >
