Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] qapi: Restrict LostTickPolicy enum to machine code

2020-09-14 Thread Markus Armbruster
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes: > +Laurent + qemu-block@ > > On 9/14/20 11:14 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes: >> >>> Acked-by: Markus Armbruster >>> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini >>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé >> >> Unlike the other patches that move code

Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] qapi: Restrict LostTickPolicy enum to machine code

2020-09-14 Thread Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
+Laurent + qemu-block@ On 9/14/20 11:14 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes: > >> Acked-by: Markus Armbruster >> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini >> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé > > Unlike the other patches that move code out of misc.json, this one > doesn't say "all

Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] qapi: Restrict LostTickPolicy enum to machine code

2020-09-14 Thread Markus Armbruster
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes: > Acked-by: Markus Armbruster > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé Unlike the other patches that move code out of misc.json, this one doesn't say "allows pulling less declarations/definitions to user-mode." Intentional?