On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 24/06/2015 06:22, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> For a summary here is the review state of the multi-arch patch queue.
>> I have too many reviewed-but-unapplied patches I have stopped working
>> on the feature until I get some of this alr
On 24/06/2015 06:22, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> For a summary here is the review state of the multi-arch patch queue.
> I have too many reviewed-but-unapplied patches I have stopped working
> on the feature until I get some of this already-reviewed work off my
> hands (read bottom up):
git log -
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 04.06.2015 um 03:10 schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
>> Was there an outcome?
>
> The conclusion for this series was that I would get a chance to review
> it (which I did later than I wanted to, after my talks from a hotel...)
> a
Hi Peter,
Am 04.06.2015 um 03:10 schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
> Was there an outcome?
The conclusion for this series was that I would get a chance to review
it (which I did later than I wanted to, after my talks from a hotel...)
and that future patch series should spend a certain minimum time on th
On 04/06/2015 03:10, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> Ping!
>
> Was there an outcome?
Andreas will handle the patches, but he's on vacation now.
Paolo
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:49:56PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 26/05/2015 10:3
Ping!
Was there an outcome?
Regards,
Peter
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:49:56PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 26/05/2015 10:33, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> > How about we have the KVM call today and calmly talk about maintainer
>> > resp
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:49:56PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 26/05/2015 10:33, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > How about we have the KVM call today and calmly talk about maintainer
> > responsibility borders?
>
> I'd be happy to attend the call today, yes.
Was there a call? Any conclusions?
--
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 26/05/2015 08:00, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> Eduardo flagged a conflict with on-list work. Do you want me to handle it?
>
> I don't know, but I'll dequeue these patches.
>
Alright,
So I'll wait for the enqueue of Bharata's patches a
On 26/05/2015 10:33, Alexander Graf wrote:
> How about we have the KVM call today and calmly talk about maintainer
> responsibility borders?
I'd be happy to attend the call today, yes.
Paolo
On 26 May 2015 at 09:36, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 26/05/2015 10:31, Andreas Färber wrote:
It's not about which tree it goes through, it's about you not
asking first - which I reminded you of just days ago, so this appears
deliberate.
>>>
>>> It certainly is.
>>
>> Then you can fix
On 26/05/2015 10:31, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> It's not about which tree it goes through, it's about you not
>>> asking first - which I reminded you of just days ago, so this appears
>>> deliberate.
>>
>> It certainly is.
>
> Then you can fix up Daniel's patch yourself and I am stepping down as
On 26.05.15 10:31, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 26.05.2015 um 10:25 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>
>>
>> On 26/05/2015 10:20, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Am 26.05.2015 um 10:05 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 26/05/2015 08:10, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 25.05.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>
Am 26.05.2015 um 10:25 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>
>
> On 26/05/2015 10:20, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 26.05.2015 um 10:05 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>> On 26/05/2015 08:10, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 25.05.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> On 25/05/2015 08:22, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>>>
On 26/05/2015 10:20, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 26.05.2015 um 10:05 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 26/05/2015 08:10, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Am 25.05.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 25/05/2015 08:22, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
>
> I'm moving t
Am 26.05.2015 um 10:05 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> On 26/05/2015 08:10, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 25.05.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>> On 25/05/2015 08:22, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages of ENV_
On 26/05/2015 08:10, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 25.05.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 25/05/2015 08:22, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>>> Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
>>>
>>> I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages of ENV_GET_CPU.
>>> This has two advantages:
>>>
>>> 1: It
On 26/05/2015 08:00, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> Eduardo flagged a conflict with on-list work. Do you want me to handle it?
I don't know, but I'll dequeue these patches.
Paolo
Am 25.05.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> On 25/05/2015 08:22, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
>>
>> I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages of ENV_GET_CPU.
>> This has two advantages:
>>
>> 1: It means we are closer to common-obj'ing core code like
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 25/05/2015 08:22, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
>>
>> I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages of ENV_GET_CPU.
>> This has two advantages:
>>
>> 1: It means we are closer to common-obj'ing co
On 25/05/2015 08:22, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
>
> I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages of ENV_GET_CPU.
> This has two advantages:
>
> 1: It means we are closer to common-obj'ing core code like exec.c, cpus.c
> and friends.
> 2: Multi arch is e
Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages of ENV_GET_CPU.
This has two advantages:
1: It means we are closer to common-obj'ing core code like exec.c, cpus.c
and friends.
2: Multi arch is easier if ENV_GET_CPU stays arch specific. It means I
don't need
21 matches
Mail list logo
