Message ID | cover.1606853298.git.jag.raman@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Initial support for multi-process Qemu | expand |
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 03:22:35PM -0500, Jagannathan Raman wrote: > This is the v12 of the patchset. Thank you very much for the > review of the v11 of the series. I'm in favor of merging this for QEMU 6.0. The command-line interface has the x- prefix so QEMU is not committing to a stable interface. Changes needed to support additional device types or to switch to the vfio-user protocol can be made later. Jag, Elena, JJ: I suggest getting your GPG key to Peter Maydell so you can send multi-process QEMU pull requests. Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:14:04AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 03:22:35PM -0500, Jagannathan Raman wrote: > > This is the v12 of the patchset. Thank you very much for the > > review of the v11 of the series. > > I'm in favor of merging this for QEMU 6.0. The command-line interface > has the x- prefix so QEMU is not committing to a stable interface. > Changes needed to support additional device types or to switch to the > vfio-user protocol can be made later. > Woot! Thank you Stefan! > Jag, Elena, JJ: I suggest getting your GPG key to Peter Maydell so you > can send multi-process QEMU pull requests. > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> In progress. Do we need to add some tagging for the PULL patches? Should we include the git repo and have the proper tag as well? Elena
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 09:51, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 03:22:35PM -0500, Jagannathan Raman wrote: > > This is the v12 of the patchset. Thank you very much for the > > review of the v11 of the series. > > I'm in favor of merging this for QEMU 6.0. The command-line interface > has the x- prefix so QEMU is not committing to a stable interface. > Changes needed to support additional device types or to switch to the > vfio-user protocol can be made later. > > Jag, Elena, JJ: I suggest getting your GPG key to Peter Maydell so you > can send multi-process QEMU pull requests. I would prefer to see this going through the tree of an established QEMU developer who's already sending pullrequests, at least initially. thanks -- PMM
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:40:11PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 09:51, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 03:22:35PM -0500, Jagannathan Raman wrote: > > > This is the v12 of the patchset. Thank you very much for the > > > review of the v11 of the series. > > > > I'm in favor of merging this for QEMU 6.0. The command-line interface > > has the x- prefix so QEMU is not committing to a stable interface. > > Changes needed to support additional device types or to switch to the > > vfio-user protocol can be made later. > > > > Jag, Elena, JJ: I suggest getting your GPG key to Peter Maydell so you > > can send multi-process QEMU pull requests. > > I would prefer to see this going through the tree of an > established QEMU developer who's already sending pullrequests, > at least initially. Once the discussion has completed I can send the patches in a pull request. I don't want to be the bottleneck for all multi-process QEMU patches in the future though. That's why I think the authors should be able to send pull requests on their own after the initial code is merged. Much of this work is isolated an only affects multi-process QEMU and the feature is marked experimental. There is little risk of introducing instability for non-multi-process QEMU users/developers. Hence why this is a new subsystem and has MAINTAINERS files entries. Does that sound good? Stefan
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 11:14, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:40:11PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > I would prefer to see this going through the tree of an > > established QEMU developer who's already sending pullrequests, > > at least initially. > > Once the discussion has completed I can send the patches in a pull > request. > > I don't want to be the bottleneck for all multi-process QEMU patches in > the future though. That's why I think the authors should be able to send > pull requests on their own after the initial code is merged. Much of > this work is isolated an only affects multi-process QEMU and the feature > is marked experimental. There is little risk of introducing instability > for non-multi-process QEMU users/developers. Hence why this is a new > subsystem and has MAINTAINERS files entries. My reasoning is basically that new pull-request senders are more work for me, because I have to make sure they have a GPG key set up, and then examine pull requests pretty carefully to check they're well-formed, all the sign-offs are correct, the changes aren't touching areas of the codebase that they shouldn't, and so on. That's particularly painful if the first pull request that comes through is a massive one rather than "here's a small number of patches with some bug fixes". thanks -- PMM
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:24:46AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 11:14, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:40:11PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > I would prefer to see this going through the tree of an > > > established QEMU developer who's already sending pullrequests, > > > at least initially. > > > > Once the discussion has completed I can send the patches in a pull > > request. > > > > I don't want to be the bottleneck for all multi-process QEMU patches in > > the future though. That's why I think the authors should be able to send > > pull requests on their own after the initial code is merged. Much of > > this work is isolated an only affects multi-process QEMU and the feature > > is marked experimental. There is little risk of introducing instability > > for non-multi-process QEMU users/developers. Hence why this is a new > > subsystem and has MAINTAINERS files entries. > > My reasoning is basically that new pull-request senders are more > work for me, because I have to make sure they have a GPG key set > up, and then examine pull requests pretty carefully to check they're > well-formed, all the sign-offs are correct, the changes aren't > touching areas of the codebase that they shouldn't, and so on. > That's particularly painful if the first pull request that comes > through is a massive one rather than "here's a small number of > patches with some bug fixes". Thanks for explaining. I will merge this series when review has finished and send you a pull request. Stefan