Am 02.08.2012 21:40, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: > >> Am 02.08.2012 20:29, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >>> Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: >>> >>>> Anthony was favoring moving reset code out of machines and expressed >>>> dislike for looping through CPUs, which my above patch took into >>>> account. The ordering issue between CPU and devices is still unsolved >>>> there. >>>> >>>> Some on-list comments from Anthony would be nice, since we are moving >>>> into opposing directions here - having the sPAPR machine be more in >>>> control vs. moving code away from the PC machine into target-i386 CPU >>>> and/or common CPU code. >>> >>> I already commented on the first patch because I had a feeling you'd >>> post something like this ;-) >> >> I was not cc'ed. :(
I did read the reply wrt reset controller chip btw in case you meant that one, but it doesn't discuss QEMU API at all, only wording changes to the commit message. >>> Regarding reset: >>> >>> 1) Devices should implement DeviceState::reset() >>> >>> 2) If a device doesn't implement ::reset(), it should call >>> qemu_register_reset() >>> >>> 3) Reset should propagate through the device model, starting with the >>> top-level machine which is logically what's plugged into the wall and >>> is the source of power in the first place. >> >> So you changed your opinion over night? > > No. Ben's cover letter indicated "as discussed with Anthony on a call", suggesting to me that you agree to the solution presented here! Bad choice of words then. >> I wanted to keep the reset callbacks in the machine. You applied a patch >> breaking that pattern and argued you wanted to move reset code *out* of >> the machine. Now you say the machine should *propagate* reset. Sorry, >> that's unlogical to me... > > You're not listening carefully. Just a friendly piece of advise-- > instead of sending knee-jerk emails, spend some time going back and > re-reading these discussions. > > This has been discussed literally to death now for years. Mind you, you are communicating with non-native speakers and I had to look up "knee-jerk". If you have a point to make, do it clearly. Your replies have been anything but helpful to me. You find my emails knee-jerked, I find your applying Igor's second patch just before the 1.2 freeze a knee-jerk reaction. Especially considering that you apply that series but not his earlier initfn one that did not get objections any more. Two opinions. Now, I have close to 20,000 unread qemu-devel mails alone. If you have time to re-read the discussions from several years then I wonder why you are not processing more uncontroversial patches and PULLs and replying to mails. Otherwise don't ask people to do what you don't humanly manage yourself. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
