(CCing Marcelo, Avi, and kvm mailing list, so they can help answering the uq/master patch flow question)
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 12:51:42AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-06-02 21:34, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > Ouch, the subject prefix is completely wrong because of broken > > git-send-email config on my side, sorry. > > > > Please ignore the 'RHEL6 qemu-kvm' prefix, it is actually supposed to go > > to the main Qemu tree. > > Some of my review comments on John's original version still apply. Same > for the advice on the patch flow (uq/master for kvm stuff). Just to make sure I didn't miss anything: 1) uq/master flow: considering that most of the series is not KVM-specific but depends on patch 02/11 (Allow an optional qemu_early_init_vcpu()) what is the best approach? Should the whole series go through uq/master, or just patch 02/11? In the case of the latter, shall the rest of the series wait for the patch to be merged upstream, or should patch 02/11 go to both branches at the same time? 2) Reviewing cpu_x86_cpuid() cpuid hacking code & dropping -enable-nesting: should it hold the series, or may it be addressed after this series enter the tree? 3) Other recommendations for the qemu_early_init_vcpu() code (checkpatch.sh, return code evaluation, KVMState vs. VCPU): I will address those issues and send a new version. Something else I may have missed? -- Eduardo
