qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2] docs: add PCIe devices placement guidelines

From: Marcel Apfelbaum
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2] docs: add PCIe devices placement guidelines
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:11:16 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 
On 10/13/2016 11:53 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

On 10/13/16 09:25, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:

On 10/12/2016 06:28 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

Marcel,

On 10/11/16 15:45, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:

Proposes best practices on how to use PCI Express/PCI device
in PCI Express based machines and explain the reasoning behind them.

Signed-off-by: Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
---

Hi,

RFC->v2:
 - Addressed a lot of comments from the reviewers (many thanks to
all, especially to Laszlo)

Since the RFC mail-thread was relatively long and already
has passed a lot of time from the RFC, I post this version
even if is very possible that I left some of the comments out,
my apologies if so.

I will go over the comments again, in the meantime please
feel free to comment on this version, even if on something
you've already pointed out.

It may take a day or two until I'll be able to respond, but I
will do my best to address all comments.

Thanks,
Marcel


 docs/pcie.txt | 273
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 273 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/pcie.txt


Your patch doesn't seem to have reached qemu-devel. I got one copy from
you directly, and no copy reflected by the qemu-devel list server. I
also checked the mailing list archive:
- searched for the subject with google -- only the RFC version was found,
- checked mail-archive.com by message-id
- checked the primary archive for October
(http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-10/threads.html)
-- I found only messages in the RFC thread.

So, before I start reading this version and commenting on it, can you
please repost version 2, and verify that the list reflects it?



Hi,

That is very strange, I tried sending it again but I received the same
error:

Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
...
<address@hidden>: host eggs.gnu.org[208.118.235.92] said: 550
Invalid
    address in message header (in reply to end of DATA command)

Reporting-MTA: dns; <>.redhat.com
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: <>
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; address@hidden
Arrival-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:20:49 +0000 (UTC)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; address@hidden
Original-Recipient: rfc822;address@hidden
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Remote-MTA: dns; eggs.gnu.org
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 Invalid address in message header


I'll try sending the mail with another mail server.




Hi Laszlo, thanks for the help


Something remains broken; and quite strangely at that. Now I've got two copies 
of the following message in my inbox:

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 RESEND] docs: add PCIe devices placement guidelines

with the following message-id's:

  <address@hidden>
  <address@hidden>

and I have zero copies of this message in my qemu-devel folder.

Interestingly, the subject *does* have the [qemu-devel] prefix, in both copies.


This is because I have a script adding the [qemu-devel] prefix, maybe I should 
drop it.
So I thought, maybe these were reflected by the list server after all, and only their headers changed unexpectedly / inexpicably, so that my filter rules wouldn't apply any longer (and the messages wouldn't be moved to my qemu-devel folder). 

However, the mailing list archive at 
<http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-10/threads.html> still 
does not list your message.

Here's the full list of headers from the first RESEND message:


Return-Path: address@hidden
Received: from zmta01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (LHLO 
zmta01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com) (10.5.81.8) by 
zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com with LMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:20:49 
-0400 (EDT)
Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com 
(int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by 
zmta01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399BF186479; 
Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:20:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from work.redhat.com (vpn-200-250.tlv.redhat.com [10.35.200.250]) by 
int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 
u9D7KbZ4017253; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:20:40 -0400
From: Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, 
address@hidden, "address@hidden"@redhat.com, address@hidden, address@hidden
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 RESEND] docs: add PCIe devices placement 
guidelines
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:20:36 +0300
Message-Id: <address@hidden>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26


Same from the second RESEND message:


Return-Path: address@hidden
Received: from zmta05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (LHLO 
zmta05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com) (10.5.81.12) by 
zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com with LMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:55:48 
-0400 (EDT)
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com 
(int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by 
zmta05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2946AF3D17; Thu, 
13 Oct 2016 03:55:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com 
[10.5.110.38]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) 
with ESMTP id u9D7tmY6005308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 
cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:55:48 
-0400
Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com (mail-lf0-f65.google.com 
[209.85.215.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 
(128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) 
with ESMTPS id 18E556ACB; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:55:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf0-f65.google.com with SMTP id x79so11304638lff.2;        
Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; 
s=20120113;        h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id;        
bh=+JGgRHitO0WAq3Rs3Wg56WhdeaZNglV9fLL15iELtbI=;        
b=Cy+4b1NqUiUkUsBKiRjFuJU3v49UagEhdlaPyl9+CA+NVMq+OPtiLV5yXuZpt8CLG1         
bM3yFj9WiJKDvYfqC1RfP++b+GiZ54VfDVYJApJMfgVNUzQ9KTwym4PyRZdq4mDs+bpz         
RPahiIr0X4Te2NmGTigFFAiehF+Cbp/z+Iw3sd1Ohk8AGQi9SeArYOwpEMfftny1bpzL         
0sy7rckFYDii4tR4NGFea6QwD1WdiZQMEcGO4ehMYkaNK1CF0HzZS8qPowhXps9jP3SI         
UJQVsgIA4XzmsU8uM9obwpYEDpsFm1sEm8QJQnH0eHIFIIsmhbYBGY01mOyaOOpreCuU         
/zhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        
h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id;        
bh=+JGgRHitO0WAq3Rs3Wg56WhdeaZNglV9fLL15iELtbI=;        
b=I5eFxwfhwQRfip4oTgWmEVxmZIZASVTZXSx4wX3E/yXDHbvjlQ9JZ0r6QEewsKqC6l         
iiPmk22UIegrf8nERV9sZ36oCDwkVt7lDHXTyVYIR71EXfgCIA/EjNfqqoB7S6W7SvnZ         
Drk41JuMd0nTsosckYkgf7a/ihIW36rAvEK7Nk0w3ksOUu4T4mgvwecmQoEDM+azW8of         
z2U6bnBPMDw4FWMSjbjTkmkTOxQq8lDwOehFCN7CiriNgdJdxx5ZSRoxuQwPvzY2WzN0         
sTSorSr9up5y8xqM0DbN5T0meRbAtEKiqD13pvik/VvTPQ1aohbaRCEe8lHce9quR3xj         
RAZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: 
AA6/9RmSYj3noaP+kq0Jt5q2dU0xdBwlcYcms/Jj427Xur4KqGcVF/T3+KdHk7+aPe+NwA==
X-Received: by 10.28.4.16 with SMTP id 16mr1160305wme.39.1476345344367;        
Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from work.redhat.com ([46.120.229.240])        by smtp.gmail.com with 
ESMTPSA id a1sm20384747wjl.28.2016.10.13.00.55.41        (version=TLS1_2 
cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);        Thu, 13 Oct 2016 
00:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
From: Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
X-Google-Original-From: Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, 
address@hidden, "address@hidden"@redhat.com, address@hidden, address@hidden
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 RESEND] docs: add PCIe devices placement 
guidelines
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:55:39 +0300
Message-Id: <address@hidden>
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 
(mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:55:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); 
Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:55:46 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'209.85.215.65' 
DOMAIN:'mail-lf0-f65.google.com' HELO:'mail-lf0-f65.google.com' 
FROM:'address@hidden' RCPT:''
X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 1.272 * 
(BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS)
 209.85.215.65 mail-lf0-f65.google.com 209.85.215.65 mail-lf0-f65.google.com 
<address@hidden>
X-RedHat-Possible-Forgery: <address@hidden> Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.5.110.38


None of these appear to contain the following headers (example taken from 
another message of yours that I do see on the list / in my qemu-devel folder):


X-BeenThere: address@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>, 
<mailto:address@hidden>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Help: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>, 
<mailto:address@hidden>
X-Mailman-Copy: yes


Something is seriously broken.


Agreed, I sent the patch with both Red Hat and Google SMTP and each time
was rejected by the server for the recipient domain nongnu.org by eggs.gnu.org. 
[2001:4830:134:3::10].

The error that the other server returned was: 550 Invalid address in message 
header

Interesting fact, replying to the list (as I am doing now) in Thunderbird 
*does* work.
Is this a git send-email bug? Very strange.
I considered re-sending again but it will only spam the people addressed in CC.



Peter and/or Stefan (really I'm just guessing here...), who can help us analyze this from 
the mailing list side? Especially the "550 Invalid address in message header" 
error message from eggs.gnu.org? Because, the exact same messages have been delivered 
directly to my inbox just fine.



Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Marcel


Thanks,
Laszlo
reply via email to
[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]