[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] 40p: LSI SCSI IRQ routing patch roll-up

From: David Gibson
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] 40p: LSI SCSI IRQ routing patch roll-up
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:22:32 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 06:34:05AM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 20/09/2018 05:26, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 19 September 2018 at 19:55, David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 06:20:56PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> >>> Here is the final set of 40p LSI SCSI routing patches with reviewer tags
> >>> rebased upon ppc-for-3.1 as requested by David.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <address@hidden>
> >>
> >> So, when I requested that, I hadn't realized there were arm patches in
> >> here.  I'm not terribly comfortable taking hw/arm patches through the
> >> ppc tree.  So I'm not really sure our best way forward for merging
> >> this.
> > 
> > The arm changes are only the 2-line refactorings in patch 2
> > that touch a couple of arm boards (as well as an hppa one and a
> > ppc one). I think the simplest thing is for you to take the
> > whole set through ppc; otherwise we'd have to split up patch 2,
> > take patch 1 through some tree, the various pieces of patch 2
> > through multiple trees and then 3-5 through ppc once those had
> > all landed. Since it's an obviously-correct refactoring rather
> > than a significant change to the boards, that seems like overkill.
> > 
> > You can have my
> > Acked-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
> > for the arm parts.
> I can confirm from my side that the changes are a simple mechanical change 
> over to
> use the modified API, plus I took the (for me) unusual step of running a full 
> build with no target list and then run "make check" to double-check I hadn't 
> missed
> anything obvious.

As an aside, can you please make that less unusual.  I get patches
which break the build of some target other than the one the author was
thinking of pretty often, so I really think an all-targets build
should be pretty much the minimum standard for testing prior to

> So based upon this I'm quite confident the non-PPC parts won't
> cause any issues.
> ATB,
> Mark.

David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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