On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:34:27 +0100
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 05:03:47PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Will rebasing virtio-1.0 on top of master after your patch
> is upstream do the trick as well?
set-revision needs to merge the change, I did not introduce generic
helpers.
>
> > - 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.
>
> Right, but for that, let's get it all in working order using patches on
> top, first. Then, re-split logically.
I'll prepare a patch for review.
>
> > Also, it seems there are some r-bs that had been given for my patches
> > that are missing on your branch.
>
> I might have missed some - can you hunt up the msg ids?
There are at least:
<20150120110021.gh17...@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
<20150120111947.gm17...@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
<20150120111555.gl17...@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
<20141212122547.511ba...@oc7435384737.ibm.com>
<20150122021522.gk27...@voom.fritz.box>
<20150120110603.gi17...@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
<20150120102936.ge17...@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
...and some for the virtio patches that are already upstream :(
