On 04/06/2015 07:44, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Bharata B Rao > <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:59:38PM -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Bharata B Rao >>> <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>>> All the comments have been addressed and the series has been reviewed >>>> by David, Eduardo and Igor. Can this series be taken in now ? >>>> >>> >>> Andreas' comment on P3 looks unaddressed. I think it can be handled by >>> just putting that one sentance explanation you gave in commit message, >>> or if its far enough out of scope just drop the change. >>> >>> I think Igor's comment was an out of scope suggestion in the end so >>> nothing needed there? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Peter >>> >>> P.S. I am not the maintainer but I need to rebase on you for one of my >>> patch sets so I'd like to help see this though! >> >> Should I be rebasing against latest master or anyone else's tree to make >> it easier for inclusion ? >> > > I don't know about anyone elses tree, but there is an edit to last > patch so a fresh complete v4 rebased is probably going to make life > easy for whoever. > > I have CCd Paolo who owns exec.c according to MAINTAINERS.
Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> I wouldn't mind separating the "CPU" parts of exec.c and moving them under Andreas and Eduardo's mantainership. In fact, Peter, in your patch to move stuff from cpu-exec.c to cpus.c, perhaps you can use qom/cpu.c instead? Then qom/cpu.c can also be the place where we can move the CPU parts of exec.c. Paolo
