On 11/15/2015 10:25 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:52:49AM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote: >> Am 13.11.2015 um 10:45 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >>> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:09:33AM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote: >>>> recent libnfs versions support logging debug messages. Add >>>> support for it in qemu through an URL parameter. >>>> >>>> Example: >>>> qemu -cdrom nfs://127.0.0.1/iso/my.iso?debug=2 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <p...@kamp.de> >>>> --- >>>> v4->v5: add a comment in the code why we limit the debug level [Stefan] >>>> v3->v4: revert to the initial version, but limit max debug level >>>> v2->v3: use a per-drive option instead of a global one. [Stefan] >>>> v1->v2: reworked patch to accept the debug level as a cmdline >>>> parameter instead of an URI parameter [Stefan] >>>> >>>> block/nfs.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>> Hi Peter, >>> Please use my official maintainer email address <stefa...@redhat.com> >>> when CCing me. I didn't spot the mail to GMail until after the QEMU 2.5 >>> hard freeze deadline. >> >> Okay. I think I used that email because you replayed to earlier versions >> of this Patch from your Gmail address. >> >>> >>> Only bug fixes are being merged for QEMU 2.5 now. I'm sorry that this >>> patch didn't make it. My block-next branch will be opening on Monday >>> and I'll merge this patch there for QEMU 2.6. >> >> Thats not critical in this case. I think same applies for the ATAPI stuff >> we worked on? There you used also your GMail account. Or can this >> be treated as a bugfix? > > The ATAPI patches go through John Snow. It's up to him whether they are > considered a bug fix suitable for 2.5 or too risky. > > Stefan >
I've tested them pretty thoroughly; I think they're safe (ATAPI-wise) provided the buffered DMA helpers look sane (They look sane to me.) The modifications to the giant atapi-return-code blob are well understood at this point and are definitely fine. --js
