On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:30:36PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Marc-André Lureau <mlur...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 06:03:50PM +0200, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com > >> wrote: > >> > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > In a previous series "RFCv2: vhost-user: shutdown and reconnection", I > >> > proposed to add a new slave request to handle graceful shutdown, for > >> > both qemu configuration, server or client, while keeping the guest > >> > running with link down status. > >> > >> OK so I would say patches 1-4 are bugfixes, looks like they > >> can be Cc stable even? > > > > 4 is being used by 5 and 10. > > 2-3 are only for testing. > > > > 4-8 are nice to have as they avoid obvious problems/crashes when handling > > disconnected state and add basic reconnection checks. > > > > 9 was already considered for stable by Eric in a previous series > > > > 10 would be good to have if 1 is accepted, to check the minimum works as > > expected > > > > FYI, I have a follow up series (~20 patches, > https://github.com/elmarco/qemu/tree/vhost-user-reconnect) doing > mostly cleanups and extra checks for disconnection at run time. In > particular, it should avoid some obvious crashers/asserts, and > prevents qemu from running as long the initial vhost_user_start() > didn't succeed (so initial flags are set). I would like to know how to > proceed with the follow-up: should I resend the whole series or should > we review/merge this rfc first (even though it is known to be > incomplete in many disconnect cases that the follow up fixes). > > thanks
I think a gradual merge is better. > -- > Marc-André Lureau
