On 12/02/2016 19:17, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Related question: is it OK to have files appearing in multiple
> sections? It would be useful for qdev*.c and vl.c. I would like
> to be CCed in any vl.c patch affecting machine initialization,
> for example.
Sure it is.
Paolo
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:22:41PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 12.02.2016 um 10:17 schrieb Marcel Apfelbaum:
> > On 02/11/2016 09:41 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> >>> On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:17:14AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 09:41 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> >>On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >>>"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>>
> On Thu, Feb 04,
Am 12.02.2016 um 10:17 schrieb Marcel Apfelbaum:
> On 02/11/2016 09:41 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22P
On 02/11/2016 09:41 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >
> >>On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
> You're talki
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed Marcel
>> who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it.
>
> Yes.
>
>> For some (but not all) core qdev parts related to the (stalled) QOM
>> mi
On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed Marcel
who initially worked on it, but I
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> > You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed Marcel
>> > who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it.
>>
On 02/04/2016 01:41 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 04.02.2016 um 12:31 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 03/02/2016 20:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:55:04PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
[...]
It looks like this s
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
> > You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed Marcel
> > who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it.
>
> Yes.
>
> > For some (but not all)
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:41:39PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 04.02.2016 um 12:31 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> > On 03/02/2016 20:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:55:04PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrot
On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
> You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed Marcel
> who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it.
Yes.
> For some (but not all) core qdev parts related to the (stalled) QOM
> migration I've been taking care of
Am 04.02.2016 um 12:31 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> On 03/02/2016 20:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:55:04PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> [...]
It looks like this series might go nowhere but this pa
On 03/02/2016 20:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:55:04PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> [...]
>>> It looks like this series might go nowhere but this patch
>>> is not tied to it and useful to us in gene
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:55:04PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> [...]
> > It looks like this series might go nowhere but this patch
> > is not tied to it and useful to us in general
> > so perhaps you could pick it up after ACKs fr
On 02/03/16 18:55, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> [...]
>> It looks like this series might go nowhere but this patch
>> is not tied to it and useful to us in general
>> so perhaps you could pick it up after ACKs from
>> S390/SPAPR maintaine
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
[...]
> It looks like this series might go nowhere but this patch
> is not tied to it and useful to us in general
> so perhaps you could pick it up after ACKs from
> S390/SPAPR maintainers.
>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost
We
18 matches
Mail list logo
