On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:17:39PM -0400, Michael R. Hines wrote: > On 04/18/2013 09:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 09:49:37AM -0400, Michael R. Hines wrote: > >>On 04/18/2013 03:00 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 07:07:09PM -0400, mrhi...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > >>>>From: "Michael R. Hines" <mrhi...@us.ibm.com> > >>>> > >>>>The following changes since commit > >>>>e0a83fc2c1582dc8d4453849852ebe6c258b7c3a: > >>>> > >>>> qom: do nothing on unparent of object without parent (2013-04-16 > >>>> 16:10:21 -0500) > >>>> > >>>>are available in the git repository at: > >>>> > >>>> g...@github.com:hinesmr/qemu.git rdma_patch_v4 > >>>It is customary to include performance numbers > >>>showing the gain from the patch in the cover letter. > >>>Github and wiki links are nice but don't require us > >>>to chase this information please. > >>Acknowledged. > >> > >>>>for you to fetch changes up to 60bfc321613cd300af2ec0f7142e8ac1a5a8bdfd: > >>>> > >>>> rdma: add documentation (2013-04-17 19:04:32 -0400) > >>>This is v4 and no changelog is provided. > >>>This makes review very hard - we are supposed to > >>>re-review everything. > >>Sorry - again I was scripting. I will stop scripting. > >> > >>>I looked at the documentation patch and not all of my > >>>past comments on documentation were addressed. > >>>Please address and log changes. > >>I go very carefully through all of the reviews and make it a point > >>to include all of the comments that were agreed upon. > >> > >>Exactly which comment did I forget? > >> > >>Thanks, > >>- Michael > >I tried to point some of them out in the mail I sent. > >I think even if author does not agree with reviewer, it's often best to > >partially address the review by adding comment in code or improving > >documentation. If a reviewer was confused, so will the reader and the > >user. > > I think the one I missed was "ulimit -l" + ibv_reg_mr() + cancel migration. > > I have a crappy description of this listed in TODO, but I can added > it to the "Before Running" section. > > Would that be sufficient?
No, I listed other missing things.
