[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH 00/16] AioContext fine-grained locking, part 1 o

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH 00/16] AioContext fine-grained locking, part 1 of 3, including bdrv_drain rewrite
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:48:00 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0

On 17/03/2016 14:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > For example, each part will probably have an uncontroversial and
> > generally useful prefix---for example patches 1-4 in this case, or the
> > change to a single linux-aio context per iothread.  You could merge
> > those only, and for the rest, I will maintain myself a branch with R-b
> > from maintainers.  Master will be periodically merged into it, but not
> > too frequently---it could be only after each part is accepted, or when
> > there is some important bugfix to catch.  Once the whole multiqueue
> > thing gets somewhere I would send you a pull request with the entire
> > feature, which would consist of say 200 patches all with a Reviewed-by
> > already.
> > 
> > This is just a possibility; if you have any other idea, I'd be happy to
> > follow it.
> That sounds reasonable.  I guess you are sending a) infrastructure and safe
> changes alongside b) longer-term work.  If you indicate which patches
> are a) then that makes it easier to merge parts into qemu.git before all
> the long-term work is complete.

Great, let's try it then.  For this series (well, for v2 of this series)
only patches 1-4 would be considered infrastructure.  They were sent
before soft freeze, would they be acceptable for 2.6?

In general I would send "safe" patches as [PATCH mm/nn] and everything
else as [PATCH multiqueue mm/nn] or similar, but in either case I'd be
seeking formal maintainer review as soon as I send them.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]