On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:27:24 +0100
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 03:22:29PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:12:14 +0100
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 02:32:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > Commit ef546f1275f6563e8934dd5e338d29d9f9909ca6 ("virtio: add
> > > > feature checking helpers") introduced a helper __virtio_has_feature.
> > > > We don't want to use reserved identifiers, though, so let's
> > > > rename __virtio_has_feature to virtio_has_feature and virtio_has_feature
> > > > to virtio_vdev_has_feature.
> > >
> > > I don't think it's urgent to fix in master.
> > > Let's focus on getting virtio 1.0 branch merged instead.
> >
> > I stumbled over this actually when trying to update my virtio-1 branch.
> > I already did that change there (as promised in
> > <20141212110701.0c6d879b.cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com>), but it got lost
> > somewhere in my moving chaos.
> >
> > What's the status of your virtio-1.0 branch?
>
> virtio pci works there too now, so I started looking at upstreaming
> stuff from that branch. Already did some.
>
> > Would it be worthwile for
> > me to rebase on top of it so I can figure out which changes I have not
> > yet sent out?
>
> Absolutely.
OK, it's actually not that much:
- this change :)
- All ccw accesses are BE (see
<20150121133922.1b3e7ceb.cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com>). I'll do two
patches: One for the existing ccws which will go via my tree and one
for the new set-revision ccw which should be squashed into that patch.
- Use legacy/non-legacy feature bit getters instead of
revision-specific ones (see
<20150130151049.2e4c5331.cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com>). Should probably
replace the existing patches introducing get_features_rev and using it
in virtio-blk.
Also, it seems there are some r-bs that had been given for my patches
that are missing on your branch.
