* [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? @ 2011-01-27 8:29 Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-27 10:26 ` [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0.14] spice + usb Gerd Hoffmann ` (5 more replies) 0 siblings, 6 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-01-27 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qemu-devel Cc: Kevin Wolf, Markus Armbruster, Gerd Hoffmann, Michael S. Tsirkin Before creating rc1 we need to make sure that all patches for 0.14 have been reviewed and applied. Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. Myself I have only http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/88490 to ping. :) It is in branch qemu-char-echo of git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git as well. Thanks! Paolo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0.14] spice + usb 2011-01-27 8:29 [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-01-27 10:26 ` Gerd Hoffmann 2011-01-27 12:34 ` [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Markus Armbruster ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Gerd Hoffmann @ 2011-01-27 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf, Markus Armbruster, qemu-devel, Michael S. Tsirkin Hi, There are two outstanding pull requests: (1) usb patch queue git://anongit.freedesktop.org/spice/qemu usb.5 Brings event queuing for usb hid devices. Brings migration support for usb hub and usb hid devices. The latter is a quite important, it makes sure the recently added remote wakeup support keeps working after migration. (2) spice patch queue (just reposted with one bugfix added). git://anongit.freedesktop.org/spice/qemu spice.v30.pull Brings a bunch of bug fixes for spice+qxl collected the last few weeks and the spicevmc chardev by Alon. thanks, Gerd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-27 8:29 [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-27 10:26 ` [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0.14] spice + usb Gerd Hoffmann @ 2011-01-27 12:34 ` Markus Armbruster 2011-01-27 12:42 ` Kevin Wolf 2011-01-27 15:13 ` Markus Armbruster 2011-01-27 16:30 ` Anthony Liguori ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Markus Armbruster @ 2011-01-27 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel, Gerd Hoffmann Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes: > Before creating rc1 we need to make sure that all patches for 0.14 have > been reviewed and applied. > > Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" > and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree > pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start > having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. All my outstanding patches are routed through Kevin's tree, which means I can leave this to him. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-27 12:34 ` [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Markus Armbruster @ 2011-01-27 12:42 ` Kevin Wolf 2011-01-27 15:13 ` Markus Armbruster 1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Kevin Wolf @ 2011-01-27 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel, Gerd Hoffmann Am 27.01.2011 13:34, schrieb Markus Armbruster: > Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes: > >> Before creating rc1 we need to make sure that all patches for 0.14 have >> been reviewed and applied. >> >> Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" >> and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree >> pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start >> having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. > > All my outstanding patches are routed through Kevin's tree, which means > I can leave this to him. I'll send a last pull request tomorrow or on Monday. Kevin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-27 12:34 ` [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Markus Armbruster 2011-01-27 12:42 ` Kevin Wolf @ 2011-01-27 15:13 ` Markus Armbruster 1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Markus Armbruster @ 2011-01-27 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel, Gerd Hoffmann Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes: > Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes: > >> Before creating rc1 we need to make sure that all patches for 0.14 have >> been reviewed and applied. >> >> Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" >> and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree >> pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start >> having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. > > All my outstanding patches are routed through Kevin's tree, which means > I can leave this to him. I'm working on a fix for the -drive if=scsi,index=N regression, to be routed through Kevin's tree as well. Should really go into 0.14. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-27 8:29 [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-27 10:26 ` [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0.14] spice + usb Gerd Hoffmann 2011-01-27 12:34 ` [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Markus Armbruster @ 2011-01-27 16:30 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-27 16:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] fix crash when a read handler calls qemu_set_fd_handler2() Rick Vernam ` (2 more replies) 2011-01-27 18:22 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 3 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Anthony Liguori @ 2011-01-27 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, Gerd Hoffmann, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster On 01/27/2011 02:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Before creating rc1 we need to make sure that all patches for 0.14 have > been reviewed and applied. > > Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" > and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree > pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start > having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. > > Myself I have only > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/88490 > > to ping. :) It is in branch qemu-char-echo of > git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git as well. > > Thanks! > This is a good idea, thanks for doing this! Regards, Anthony Liguori > Paolo > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] fix crash when a read handler calls qemu_set_fd_handler2() 2011-01-27 16:30 ` Anthony Liguori @ 2011-01-27 16:44 ` Rick Vernam 2011-01-27 17:14 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-27 16:51 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] seabios virtio bug Rick Vernam 2011-01-28 7:51 ` [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Gleb Natapov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Rick Vernam @ 2011-01-27 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qemu-devel > > Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" > > and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree > > pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start > > having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. I am not the author of this patch, but it fixed a crash that was bugging me consistently. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/62420/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] fix crash when a read handler calls qemu_set_fd_handler2() 2011-01-27 16:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] fix crash when a read handler calls qemu_set_fd_handler2() Rick Vernam @ 2011-01-27 17:14 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-27 19:50 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Anthony Liguori @ 2011-01-27 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rickv; +Cc: qemu-devel, Stefan Hajnoczi On 01/27/2011 10:44 AM, Rick Vernam wrote: >>> Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" >>> and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree >>> pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start >>> having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. >>> > I am not the author of this patch, but it fixed a crash that was bugging me > consistently. > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/62420/ > Stefan, I thought we're carryign a patch from you that fixes this problem? Am I mistaken? Regards, Anthony Liguori ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] fix crash when a read handler calls qemu_set_fd_handler2() 2011-01-27 17:14 ` Anthony Liguori @ 2011-01-27 19:50 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2011-01-28 0:38 ` Anthony Liguori 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2011-01-27 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: qemu-devel, Stefan Hajnoczi On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 01/27/2011 10:44 AM, Rick Vernam wrote: >>>> >>>> Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" >>>> and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree >>>> pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start >>>> having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. >>>> >> >> I am not the author of this patch, but it fixed a crash that was bugging >> me >> consistently. >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/62420/ >> > > Stefan, I thought we're carryign a patch from you that fixes this problem? > Am I mistaken? Yes, that crash was fixed in qemu.git by 0290b57bdfec83ca78b6d119ea9847bb17943328 "Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them". To be fair Corentin and Yoshiaki seemed in favor of applying this one regardless: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/80335/ Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] fix crash when a read handler calls qemu_set_fd_handler2() 2011-01-27 19:50 ` Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2011-01-28 0:38 ` Anthony Liguori 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Anthony Liguori @ 2011-01-28 0:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: qemu-devel, Stefan Hajnoczi On 01/27/2011 01:50 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > >> On 01/27/2011 10:44 AM, Rick Vernam wrote: >> >>>>> Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" >>>>> and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree >>>>> pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start >>>>> having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. >>>>> >>>>> >>> I am not the author of this patch, but it fixed a crash that was bugging >>> me >>> consistently. >>> >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/62420/ >>> >>> >> Stefan, I thought we're carryign a patch from you that fixes this problem? >> Am I mistaken? >> > Yes, that crash was fixed in qemu.git by > 0290b57bdfec83ca78b6d119ea9847bb17943328 "Delete IOHandlers after > potentially running them". > > To be fair Corentin and Yoshiaki seemed in favor of applying this one > regardless: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/80335/ > Yeah, the logic is bad there though. The ioh gets freed as soon as that condition is over so the assignments to NULL are pointless. But at any rate, let's just get rid of the whole dang thing and get a glib based main loop in as soon as we can. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Stefan > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] seabios virtio bug 2011-01-27 16:30 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-27 16:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] fix crash when a read handler calls qemu_set_fd_handler2() Rick Vernam @ 2011-01-27 16:51 ` Rick Vernam 2011-01-27 17:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-28 7:51 ` [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Gleb Natapov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Rick Vernam @ 2011-01-27 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qemu-devel > > Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" > > and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree > > pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start > > having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. I'm not sure how to tell which version of seabios is shipped with qemu. What I am sure about is that the version that shipped with qemu 0.13 had a bug as described here http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-09/msg01145.html The patch to seabios that fixed the bug was released with seabios-0.6.1, though I'm not sure if it was back-ported. http://www.seabios.org/pipermail/seabios/2010-September/000909.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] Re: [PING 0.14] seabios virtio bug 2011-01-27 16:51 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] seabios virtio bug Rick Vernam @ 2011-01-27 17:12 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-27 17:30 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-01-27 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rickv; +Cc: qemu-devel, Gleb Natapov On 01/27/2011 05:51 PM, Rick Vernam wrote: > The patch to seabios that fixed the bug was released with seabios-0.6.1, though > I'm not sure if it was back-ported. > http://www.seabios.org/pipermail/seabios/2010-September/000909.html Right now QEMU's seabios submodule points at 0.6.1. Should it be updated to include Gleb and Kevin's bootorder work? Paolo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] Re: [PING 0.14] seabios virtio bug 2011-01-27 17:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-01-27 17:30 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2011-01-27 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: qemu-devel On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:12:31PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 01/27/2011 05:51 PM, Rick Vernam wrote: > >The patch to seabios that fixed the bug was released with seabios-0.6.1, though > >I'm not sure if it was back-ported. > >http://www.seabios.org/pipermail/seabios/2010-September/000909.html > > Right now QEMU's seabios submodule points at 0.6.1. > > Should it be updated to include Gleb and Kevin's bootorder work? > There is not stable release with bootorder yet. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-27 16:30 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-27 16:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] fix crash when a read handler calls qemu_set_fd_handler2() Rick Vernam 2011-01-27 16:51 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] seabios virtio bug Rick Vernam @ 2011-01-28 7:51 ` Gleb Natapov 2 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2011-01-28 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:30:46AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 01/27/2011 02:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >Before creating rc1 we need to make sure that all patches for 0.14 have > >been reviewed and applied. > > > >Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" > >and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree > >pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start > >having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. > > > >Myself I have only > > > >http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/88490 > > > >to ping. :) It is in branch qemu-char-echo of > >git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git as well. > > > >Thanks! > > This is a good idea, thanks for doing this! > http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg50368.html -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] Re: [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-27 8:29 [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Paolo Bonzini ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2011-01-27 16:30 ` Anthony Liguori @ 2011-01-27 18:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-01-28 8:06 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 2011-01-28 6:43 ` [Qemu-devel] " Amit Shah 2011-02-02 19:28 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) Stefan Weil 5 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-01-27 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: Kevin Wolf, Markus Armbruster, qemu-devel, Gerd Hoffmann On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 09:29:36AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Before creating rc1 we need to make sure that all patches for 0.14 have > been reviewed and applied. > > Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" > and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree > pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start > having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. > > Myself I have only > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/88490 > > to ping. :) It is in branch qemu-char-echo of > git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git as well. > > Thanks! > > Paolo Have some pci fixes, should be ready by monday. Also working on a vhost patch that I think we need for 0.14 but only for qemu-kvm. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-27 18:22 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-01-28 8:06 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 2011-01-28 10:00 ` Michael Tokarev 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Yoshiaki Tamura @ 2011-01-28 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael S. Tsirkin Cc: Kevin Wolf, Markus Armbruster, qemu-devel, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini 2011/1/28 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 09:29:36AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Before creating rc1 we need to make sure that all patches for 0.14 have >> been reviewed and applied. >> >> Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" >> and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree >> pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start >> having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. >> >> Myself I have only >> >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/88490 >> >> to ping. :) It is in branch qemu-char-echo of >> git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git as well. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Paolo > > Have some pci fixes, should be ready by monday. > Also working on a vhost patch that I think we > need for 0.14 but only for qemu-kvm. I would like Kemari to be included for 0.14. Thanks to many valuable comments from various reviewers, it got better than ever, I believe. For those who may object, it wouldn't affect any functions including live migration unless one turns it on. Besides, it is a good application of live migration. By having merged, I would be able to focus on increasing functionality and optimization. Thanks, Yoshi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-28 8:06 ` Yoshiaki Tamura @ 2011-01-28 10:00 ` Michael Tokarev 2011-01-28 13:33 ` Paolo Bonzini 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Michael Tokarev @ 2011-01-28 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yoshiaki Tamura Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini 28.01.2011 11:06, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote: [] > I would like Kemari to be included for 0.14. Thanks to many > valuable comments from various reviewers, it got better than > ever, I believe. For those who may object, it wouldn't affect > any functions including live migration unless one turns it on. > Besides, it is a good application of live migration. By having > merged, I would be able to focus on increasing functionality and > optimization. It's somewhat unexpected to see merge request for any new functionality into a "stable" branch. Having nothing bad against Kemari, I still think we shouldn't include any new functionality into 0.14, which were planned to be released before new year... ;) I mean, if it were not merged so far, for reasons that can be discussed separately etc, regardless of its good shape and so on... let's don't do any last-minute merges. Mergeing it to a development branch is entirely another question. /mjt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] Re: [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-28 10:00 ` Michael Tokarev @ 2011-01-28 13:33 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-28 14:21 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 2011-01-28 16:48 ` Anthony Liguori 0 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-01-28 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Tokarev Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, Markus Armbruster, Yoshiaki Tamura, qemu-devel, Gerd Hoffmann On 01/28/2011 11:00 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 28.01.2011 11:06, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote: > [] >> I would like Kemari to be included for 0.14. Thanks to many >> valuable comments from various reviewers, it got better than >> ever, I believe. For those who may object, it wouldn't affect >> any functions including live migration unless one turns it on. >> Besides, it is a good application of live migration. By having >> merged, I would be able to focus on increasing functionality and >> optimization. > > It's somewhat unexpected to see merge request for any new > functionality into a "stable" branch. Having nothing bad > against Kemari, I still think we shouldn't include any new > functionality into 0.14, which were planned to be released > before new year... ;) > > I mean, if it were not merged so far, for reasons that can > be discussed separately etc, regardless of its good shape > and so on... let's don't do any last-minute merges. To be fair to Yoshiaki, the first 17 patches in his 19-patch series have no impact on the operation of QEMU, and even the last two are Kemari-only. I know almost nothing about Kemari so I cannot comment on the technical side of those patches, only that it w^Hshouldn't be destabilizing. I made some comments on a couple of patches, so I'm inclined to say no as well. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/91096 should be applied in any case, as it is a regression from 0.12. Paolo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-28 13:33 ` Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-01-28 14:21 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 2011-02-02 9:31 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-28 16:48 ` Anthony Liguori 1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Yoshiaki Tamura @ 2011-01-28 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, Michael Tokarev, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Gerd Hoffmann 2011/1/28 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>: > On 01/28/2011 11:00 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote: >> >> 28.01.2011 11:06, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote: >> [] >>> >>> I would like Kemari to be included for 0.14. Thanks to many >>> valuable comments from various reviewers, it got better than >>> ever, I believe. For those who may object, it wouldn't affect >>> any functions including live migration unless one turns it on. >>> Besides, it is a good application of live migration. By having >>> merged, I would be able to focus on increasing functionality and >>> optimization. >> >> It's somewhat unexpected to see merge request for any new >> functionality into a "stable" branch. Having nothing bad >> against Kemari, I still think we shouldn't include any new >> functionality into 0.14, which were planned to be released >> before new year... ;) >> >> I mean, if it were not merged so far, for reasons that can >> be discussed separately etc, regardless of its good shape >> and so on... let's don't do any last-minute merges. > > To be fair to Yoshiaki, the first 17 patches in his 19-patch series have no > impact on the operation of QEMU, and even the last two are Kemari-only. I > know almost nothing about Kemari so I cannot comment on the technical side > of those patches, only that it w^Hshouldn't be destabilizing. I made some > comments on a couple of patches, so I'm inclined to say no as well. I don't have any intention to destabilize qemu, so I'm happy to follow what people think appropriate. > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/91096 should be applied > in any case, as it is a regression from 0.12. Oops, I forgot to list it :) Thanks for catching. Yoshi > > Paolo > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] Re: [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-28 14:21 ` Yoshiaki Tamura @ 2011-02-02 9:31 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-02-03 4:44 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-02-02 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qemu-devel Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, Michael Tokarev, Markus Armbruster, Gerd Hoffmann On 01/28/2011 03:21 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote: > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/91096 should be applied > > in any case, as it is a regression from 0.12. > > Oops, I forgot to list it:) Thanks for catching. This one is still missing in 0.14. Paolo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-02-02 9:31 ` Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-02-03 4:44 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Yoshiaki Tamura @ 2011-02-03 4:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, Michael Tokarev, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Gerd Hoffmann 2011/2/2 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>: > On 01/28/2011 03:21 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote: >> >> > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/91096 should be >> > applied >> > in any case, as it is a regression from 0.12. >> >> Oops, I forgot to list it:) Thanks for catching. > > This one is still missing in 0.14. Posted with [PATCH 0.14] tag, so that it won't get missed. http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg53954.html Thanks, Yoshi > > Paolo > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-28 13:33 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-28 14:21 ` Yoshiaki Tamura @ 2011-01-28 16:48 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-29 13:43 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Anthony Liguori @ 2011-01-28 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, Michael Tokarev, qemu-devel, Yoshiaki Tamura, Markus Armbruster, Gerd Hoffmann On 01/28/2011 07:33 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 01/28/2011 11:00 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote: >> 28.01.2011 11:06, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote: >> [] >>> I would like Kemari to be included for 0.14. Thanks to many >>> valuable comments from various reviewers, it got better than >>> ever, I believe. For those who may object, it wouldn't affect >>> any functions including live migration unless one turns it on. >>> Besides, it is a good application of live migration. By having >>> merged, I would be able to focus on increasing functionality and >>> optimization. >> >> It's somewhat unexpected to see merge request for any new >> functionality into a "stable" branch. Having nothing bad >> against Kemari, I still think we shouldn't include any new >> functionality into 0.14, which were planned to be released >> before new year... ;) >> >> I mean, if it were not merged so far, for reasons that can >> be discussed separately etc, regardless of its good shape >> and so on... let's don't do any last-minute merges. > > To be fair to Yoshiaki, the first 17 patches in his 19-patch series > have no impact on the operation of QEMU, and even the last two are > Kemari-only. I know almost nothing about Kemari so I cannot comment > on the technical side of those patches, only that it w^Hshouldn't be > destabilizing. I made some comments on a couple of patches, so I'm > inclined to say no as well. No, I'd prefer not to take Kemari before the 0.14 freeze. It gives us a full release cycle for testing plus gives a nice headline feature for 0.15. > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/91096 should be > applied in any case, as it is a regression from 0.12. Thanks. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Paolo > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-28 16:48 ` Anthony Liguori @ 2011-01-29 13:43 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Yoshiaki Tamura @ 2011-01-29 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, Michael Tokarev, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini 2011/1/29 Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>: > On 01/28/2011 07:33 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> On 01/28/2011 11:00 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote: >>> >>> 28.01.2011 11:06, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote: >>> [] >>>> >>>> I would like Kemari to be included for 0.14. Thanks to many >>>> valuable comments from various reviewers, it got better than >>>> ever, I believe. For those who may object, it wouldn't affect >>>> any functions including live migration unless one turns it on. >>>> Besides, it is a good application of live migration. By having >>>> merged, I would be able to focus on increasing functionality and >>>> optimization. >>> >>> It's somewhat unexpected to see merge request for any new >>> functionality into a "stable" branch. Having nothing bad >>> against Kemari, I still think we shouldn't include any new >>> functionality into 0.14, which were planned to be released >>> before new year... ;) >>> >>> I mean, if it were not merged so far, for reasons that can >>> be discussed separately etc, regardless of its good shape >>> and so on... let's don't do any last-minute merges. >> >> To be fair to Yoshiaki, the first 17 patches in his 19-patch series have >> no impact on the operation of QEMU, and even the last two are Kemari-only. >> I know almost nothing about Kemari so I cannot comment on the technical >> side of those patches, only that it w^Hshouldn't be destabilizing. I made >> some comments on a couple of patches, so I'm inclined to say no as well. > > No, I'd prefer not to take Kemari before the 0.14 freeze. It gives us a > full release cycle for testing plus gives a nice headline feature for 0.15. Sounds reasonable to me. I thought it might be forgotten unless I didn't raise my voice :) I'll keep up the pace to get it in once the development cycle is ready. Thanks, Yoshi >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/91096 should be >> applied in any case, as it is a regression from 0.12. > > Thanks. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > >> Paolo >> > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? 2011-01-27 8:29 [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Paolo Bonzini ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2011-01-27 18:22 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-01-28 6:43 ` Amit Shah 2011-02-02 19:28 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) Stefan Weil 5 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Amit Shah @ 2011-01-28 6:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf, Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Gerd Hoffmann On (Thu) Jan 27 2011 [09:29:36], Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Before creating rc1 we need to make sure that all patches for 0.14 have > been reviewed and applied. > > Please reply to this message with a subject starting with "[PING 0.14]" > and a link to patchwork, gmane, or whatnot; or "[PULL 0.14]" for tree > pulls. Also, I believe all patches meant for stable should also start > having "[PATCH 0.14]", too. I have the following pull request for virtio-serial: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/91054 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/qemu/amit/virtio-serial.git for-anthony >From the orig. mail: Please pull for fixes to the virtio-serial code: - Don't copy over guest buffer to host (prevents potential DoS scenarios, pointed out by Paul Brook) - Add support for flow control - A couple of trivial fixes to virtio-console code Amit ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-01-27 8:29 [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Paolo Bonzini ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2011-01-28 6:43 ` [Qemu-devel] " Amit Shah @ 2011-02-02 19:28 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-02 21:25 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin ` (3 more replies) 5 siblings, 4 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-02 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann Hello, these are some patches which I found on my stack of open patches. All of them should go into 0.14, and at least some of them could also be applied to 0.13. [PATCH] hw/fmopl: Fix buffer access out-of-bounds errors (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79054/) [PATCH] linux-user: Fix possible realloc memory leak (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79217/) [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) [PATCH 3/3] w64: Fix problem with missing sigset_t (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79947/) [PATCH 1/3] pci: Fix memory leak (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79996/) [PATCH 2/3] ppc405: Fix memory leak (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79997/) [PATCH 3/3] s390: Fix memory leak (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79998/) [PATCH] Fix trivial "endianness bugs" (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/80223/) [PATCH] HACKING: Update status of format checking (http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-01/msg02476.html) [PATCH] mingw32: Fix definitions for PRId64, PRIx64, PRIu64, PRIo64 (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/74276/) Regards, Stefan Weil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] Re: [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-02 19:28 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-02 21:25 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-02-03 7:00 ` Riku Voipio ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-02-02 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Weil Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:28:15PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote: > [PATCH 1/3] pci: Fix memory leak (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79996/) Looks good. Pls cc me on patches next time to make sure I do not miss a patch. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] Re: [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-02 19:28 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) Stefan Weil 2011-02-02 21:25 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-02-03 7:00 ` Riku Voipio 2011-02-03 10:05 ` [Qemu-devel] " Markus Armbruster 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori 3 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Riku Voipio @ 2011-02-03 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Weil Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:28:15PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote: > [PATCH] linux-user: Fix possible realloc memory leak > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79217/) Looks ok for me. Riku ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-02 19:28 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) Stefan Weil 2011-02-02 21:25 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-02-03 7:00 ` Riku Voipio @ 2011-02-03 10:05 ` Markus Armbruster 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori 3 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Markus Armbruster @ 2011-02-03 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Weil Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini Also: From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] do not pass NULL to strdup. Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:34:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20110202153434.GP14984@redhat.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-02 19:28 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) Stefan Weil ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2011-02-03 10:05 ` [Qemu-devel] " Markus Armbruster @ 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-04 12:37 ` Paolo Bonzini ` (6 more replies) 3 siblings, 7 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Anthony Liguori @ 2011-02-04 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Weil Cc: Kevin Wolf, Alexander Graf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: > Hello, > > these are some patches which I found on my stack of open patches. > > All of them should go into 0.14, and at least some of them could also > be applied to 0.13. This need the following Acks: > > [PATCH] hw/fmopl: Fix buffer access out-of-bounds errors > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79054/) malc > [PATCH] linux-user: Fix possible realloc memory leak > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79217/) Riku > [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) > [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) Luiz > [PATCH 3/3] w64: Fix problem with missing sigset_t > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79947/) We don't support w64... > [PATCH 1/3] pci: Fix memory leak > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79996/) mst (looks like he did) > [PATCH 2/3] ppc405: Fix memory leak > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79997/) > [PATCH 3/3] s390: Fix memory leak > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79998/) Alex for both of these. Regards, Anthony Liguori > [PATCH] Fix trivial "endianness bugs" > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/80223/) > > [PATCH] HACKING: Update status of format checking > (http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-01/msg02476.html) > [PATCH] mingw32: Fix definitions for PRId64, PRIx64, PRIu64, PRIo64 > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/74276/) > > Regards, > Stefan Weil > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori @ 2011-02-04 12:37 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-02-04 14:40 ` Alexander Graf ` (5 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-02-04 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf, Alexander Graf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann On 02/04/2011 01:30 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > >> [PATCH 3/3] w64: Fix problem with missing sigset_t >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79947/) > > We don't support w64... AFAIK mingw-w64 supports both 32-bit and 64-bit compilation, so the patch subject is misleading. Paolo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-04 12:37 ` Paolo Bonzini @ 2011-02-04 14:40 ` Alexander Graf 2011-02-04 15:27 ` Markus Armbruster ` (4 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2011-02-04 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On 04.02.2011, at 13:30, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> Hello, >> >> these are some patches which I found on my stack of open patches. >> >> All of them should go into 0.14, and at least some of them could also be applied to 0.13. > > This need the following Acks: > >> >> [PATCH] hw/fmopl: Fix buffer access out-of-bounds errors (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79054/) > > malc > >> [PATCH] linux-user: Fix possible realloc memory leak (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79217/) > > Riku > >> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) >> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) > > Luiz > >> [PATCH 3/3] w64: Fix problem with missing sigset_t (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79947/) > > We don't support w64... > >> [PATCH 1/3] pci: Fix memory leak (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79996/) > > mst (looks like he did) > >> [PATCH 2/3] ppc405: Fix memory leak (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79997/) >> [PATCH 3/3] s390: Fix memory leak (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79998/) > > Alex for both of these. Acked-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> for both :) Alex > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > >> [PATCH] Fix trivial "endianness bugs" (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/80223/) >> >> [PATCH] HACKING: Update status of format checking (http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-01/msg02476.html) >> [PATCH] mingw32: Fix definitions for PRId64, PRIx64, PRIu64, PRIo64 (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/74276/) >> >> Regards, >> Stefan Weil >> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-04 12:37 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-02-04 14:40 ` Alexander Graf @ 2011-02-04 15:27 ` Markus Armbruster 2011-02-04 15:38 ` Anthony Liguori ` (3 more replies) 2011-02-04 15:45 ` malc ` (3 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 4 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Markus Armbruster @ 2011-02-04 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, Alexander Graf, qemu-devel, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes: > On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: [...] >> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) >> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) > > Luiz I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known contents, no long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever use. As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I, and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14. [...] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 15:27 ` Markus Armbruster @ 2011-02-04 15:38 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-04 16:42 ` Luiz Capitulino ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Anthony Liguori @ 2011-02-04 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, Alexander Graf, qemu-devel, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On 02/04/2011 09:27 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes: > > >> On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> > [...] > >>> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks >>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) >>> > >>> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash >>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) >>> >> Luiz >> > I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading > lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known contents, no > long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever > use. > > As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I, > and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14. > Yeah, I just meant the qdict one. Regards, Anthony Liguori > [...] > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 15:27 ` Markus Armbruster 2011-02-04 15:38 ` Anthony Liguori @ 2011-02-04 16:42 ` Luiz Capitulino 2011-02-04 17:18 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-16 20:26 ` Stefan Weil 3 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Luiz Capitulino @ 2011-02-04 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, Alexander Graf, qemu-devel, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:27:46 +0100 Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote: > Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes: > > > On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: > [...] > >> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks > >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) > > >> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash > >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) > > > > Luiz > > I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading > lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known contents, no > long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever > use. Agreed. > > As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I, > and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14. > > [...] > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 15:27 ` Markus Armbruster 2011-02-04 15:38 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-04 16:42 ` Luiz Capitulino @ 2011-02-04 17:18 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-04 17:21 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-16 20:26 ` Stefan Weil 3 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-04 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, Alexander Graf, qemu-devel, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini Am 04.02.2011 16:27, schrieb Markus Armbruster: > Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes: > >> On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: > [...] >>> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks >>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) > >>> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash >>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) >> >> Luiz > > I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading > lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known contents, no > long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever > use. > > As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I, > and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14. > > [...] Even if the current code does not result in a real bug at the moment, it should get fixed: * Using tools like cppcheck (or others) to find bugs is good, because it finds bugs which are important. Sorting out "unimportant" bugs from the results wastes time which could be invested better, and this waste of time lasts forever until the "unimportant" bug will be fixed. The sooner you fix it, the better it is. * Code gets copied, and maybe the copy of code with some weakness can expose a real problem. Therefore I think that both patches should be applied at least to qemu master (as they are really simple patches, applying them to 0.14 would be cheap and good as well). Regards, Stefan Weil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 17:18 ` Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-04 17:21 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-04 17:36 ` Stefan Weil 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Anthony Liguori @ 2011-02-04 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Weil Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel, Riku Voipio, Alexander Graf, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On 02/04/2011 11:18 AM, Stefan Weil wrote: > Am 04.02.2011 16:27, schrieb Markus Armbruster: >> Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes: >> >>> On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> [...] >>>> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks >>>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) >> >>>> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash >>>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) >>> >>> Luiz >> >> I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading >> lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known contents, no >> long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever >> use. >> >> As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I, >> and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14. >> >> [...] > > Even if the current code does not result in a real bug at the moment, > it should get fixed: > > * Using tools like cppcheck (or others) to find bugs is good, > because it finds bugs which are important. > Sorting out "unimportant" bugs from the results wastes time > which could be invested better, and this waste of time lasts > forever until the "unimportant" bug will be fixed. The sooner > you fix it, the better it is. No, this is not a good use of time. I've said multiple times in the past, I'm not interested in implementing work arounds for false positives in static analysis tools. We have enough real problems to fix, we don't need to waste cycles on psuedo problems. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > * Code gets copied, and maybe the copy of code with some weakness > can expose a real problem. > > Therefore I think that both patches should be applied > at least to qemu master (as they are really simple patches, > applying them to 0.14 would be cheap and good as well). > > Regards, > Stefan Weil > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 17:21 ` Anthony Liguori @ 2011-02-04 17:36 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-04 17:59 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-07 18:54 ` Luiz Capitulino 0 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-04 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel, Riku Voipio, Alexander Graf, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini Am 04.02.2011 18:21, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 02/04/2011 11:18 AM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> Am 04.02.2011 16:27, schrieb Markus Armbruster: >>> Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes: >>> >>>> On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks >>>>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) >>> >>>>> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash >>>>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) >>>> >>>> Luiz >>> >>> I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading >>> lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known >>> contents, no >>> long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever >>> use. >>> >>> As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I, >>> and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14. >>> >>> [...] >> >> Even if the current code does not result in a real bug at the moment, >> it should get fixed: >> >> * Using tools like cppcheck (or others) to find bugs is good, >> because it finds bugs which are important. >> Sorting out "unimportant" bugs from the results wastes time >> which could be invested better, and this waste of time lasts >> forever until the "unimportant" bug will be fixed. The sooner >> you fix it, the better it is. > > No, this is not a good use of time. I've said multiple times in the > past, I'm not interested in implementing work arounds for false > positives in static analysis tools. > > We have enough real problems to fix, we don't need to waste cycles on > psuedo problems. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori Hi Anthony, please accept that even if you said something multiple times, other people might have a different point of view. QEMU is team work, isn't it? Both positives are correct, there was no false positive: Reading strings from external files into limited memory without limiting their length is bad. Even if it works with some input data, this kind of programming will be copied by novice programmers and used with data which is critical. In the second case, it might be a philosophical question whether resources like memory or files should be released explicitly. I tend to say yes, other people say no because the OS will release them automatically when the program terminates. But there is no doubt that the tool which says there is a leak is right. Regards, Stefan Weil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 17:36 ` Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-04 17:59 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-07 18:54 ` Luiz Capitulino 1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Anthony Liguori @ 2011-02-04 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Weil Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Markus Armbruster, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Alexander Graf, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On 02/04/2011 11:36 AM, Stefan Weil wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > please accept that even if you said something multiple times, > other people might have a different point of view. Yup, just making my point of view clear. > QEMU is team work, isn't it? > > Both positives are correct, there was no false positive: > > Reading strings from external files into limited memory > without limiting their length is bad. Even if it works with > some input data, this kind of programming will be copied > by novice programmers and used with data which is critical. This is why I dislike patches like this, because the discussion about whether it really is important or not ends up being a huge distraction. Regards, Anthony Liguori ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 17:36 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-04 17:59 ` Anthony Liguori @ 2011-02-07 18:54 ` Luiz Capitulino 2011-02-07 19:18 ` Stefan Weil 1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Luiz Capitulino @ 2011-02-07 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Weil Cc: Kevin Wolf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Markus Armbruster, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Alexander Graf, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:36:39 +0100 Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > Am 04.02.2011 18:21, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > > On 02/04/2011 11:18 AM, Stefan Weil wrote: > >> Am 04.02.2011 16:27, schrieb Markus Armbruster: > >>> Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes: > >>> > >>>> On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>>> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks > >>>>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) > >>> > >>>>> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash > >>>>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) > >>>> > >>>> Luiz > >>> > >>> I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading > >>> lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known > >>> contents, no > >>> long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever > >>> use. > >>> > >>> As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I, > >>> and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14. > >>> > >>> [...] > >> > >> Even if the current code does not result in a real bug at the moment, > >> it should get fixed: > >> > >> * Using tools like cppcheck (or others) to find bugs is good, > >> because it finds bugs which are important. > >> Sorting out "unimportant" bugs from the results wastes time > >> which could be invested better, and this waste of time lasts > >> forever until the "unimportant" bug will be fixed. The sooner > >> you fix it, the better it is. > > > > No, this is not a good use of time. I've said multiple times in the > > past, I'm not interested in implementing work arounds for false > > positives in static analysis tools. > > > > We have enough real problems to fix, we don't need to waste cycles on > > psuedo problems. > > > > Regards, > > > > Anthony Liguori > > Hi Anthony, > > please accept that even if you said something multiple times, > other people might have a different point of view. > QEMU is team work, isn't it? > > Both positives are correct, there was no false positive: > > Reading strings from external files into limited memory > without limiting their length is bad. This wasn't denied, what Markus said is that this is test code and thus it isn't high priority for the (now released) 0.14 release. > Even if it works with > some input data, this kind of programming will be copied > by novice programmers and used with data which is critical. OMG, are they copying code from qemu?! > > In the second case, it might be a philosophical question > whether resources like memory or files should be released > explicitly. I tend to say yes, other people say no because the > OS will release them automatically when the program terminates. > But there is no doubt that the tool which says there is a leak > is right. > > Regards, > Stefan Weil > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-07 18:54 ` Luiz Capitulino @ 2011-02-07 19:18 ` Stefan Weil 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-07 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luiz Capitulino; +Cc: Blue Swirl, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster Am 07.02.2011 19:54, schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > This wasn't denied, what Markus said is that this is test code and > thus it isn't high priority for the (now released) 0.14 release. That's ok. Fixing the code in master is fine. Thanks, Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 15:27 ` Markus Armbruster ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2011-02-04 17:18 ` Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-16 20:26 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-16 20:39 ` Markus Armbruster 3 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-16 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Armbruster; +Cc: qemu-devel, Luiz Capitulino Am 04.02.2011 16:27, schrieb Markus Armbruster: > Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes: > > >> On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> > [...] > >>> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks >>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) >>> > >>> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash >>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) >>> >> Luiz >> > I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading > lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known contents, no > long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever > use. > > As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I, > and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14. > > [...] > Ack for qemu master then? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-16 20:26 ` Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-16 20:39 ` Markus Armbruster 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Markus Armbruster @ 2011-02-16 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Weil; +Cc: qemu-devel, Luiz Capitulino Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> writes: > Am 04.02.2011 16:27, schrieb Markus Armbruster: >> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes: >> >> >>> On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >>> >> [...] >> >>>> [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks >>>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/) >>>> >> >>>> [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash >>>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/) >>>> >>> Luiz >>> >> I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading >> lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known contents, no >> long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever >> use. >> >> As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I, >> and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14. >> >> [...] >> > > > Ack for qemu master then? I wouldn't bother myself, but I won't object, either. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2011-02-04 15:27 ` Markus Armbruster @ 2011-02-04 15:45 ` malc 2011-02-05 19:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin ` (2 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: malc @ 2011-02-04 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf, Alexander Graf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: > > Hello, > > > > these are some patches which I found on my stack of open patches. > > > > All of them should go into 0.14, and at least some of them could also be > > applied to 0.13. > > This need the following Acks: > > > > > [PATCH] hw/fmopl: Fix buffer access out-of-bounds errors > > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79054/) > > malc The patch looks correct. [..snip..] -- mailto:av1474@comtv.ru ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2011-02-04 15:45 ` malc @ 2011-02-05 19:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-02-05 19:34 ` riku voipio 2011-02-23 21:50 ` Stefan Weil 6 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-02-05 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf, Alexander Graf, Anthony Liguori, Riku Voipio, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 06:30:24AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >[PATCH 1/3] pci: Fix memory leak > >(http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79996/) > > mst (looks like he did) Yes, ack. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2011-02-05 19:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-02-05 19:34 ` riku voipio 2011-02-23 21:50 ` Stefan Weil 6 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: riku voipio @ 2011-02-05 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf, Alexander Graf, Anthony Liguori, Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel, Markus Armbruster, Blue Swirl, Gerd Hoffmann, Paolo Bonzini On 02/04/2011 02:30 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > This need the following Acks: >> [PATCH] linux-user: Fix possible realloc memory leak >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79217/) > Riku I thought I gave an OK for this already. Acked-By: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2011-02-05 19:34 ` riku voipio @ 2011-02-23 21:50 ` Stefan Weil 6 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Stefan Weil @ 2011-02-23 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: qemu-devel Am 04.02.2011 13:30, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> Hello, >> >> these are some patches which I found on my stack of open patches. >> >> All of them should go into 0.14, and at least some of them could also >> be applied to 0.13. > > This need the following Acks: >> [PATCH] hw/fmopl: Fix buffer access out-of-bounds errors >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79054/) > malc Malc wrote that the patch looks correct, but it is still uncommitted. > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > >> [PATCH] Fix trivial "endianness bugs" >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/80223/) >> >> [PATCH] HACKING: Update status of format checking >> (http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-01/msg02476.html) >> [PATCH] mingw32: Fix definitions for PRId64, PRIx64, PRIu64, PRIo64 >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/74276/) These three patches are still missing in QEMU master. I don't think that any of the patches is still needed in 0.14. So in total four of these patches are still waiting for a committer (or a comment why they won't be committed). Thanks to the committers of the other patches. Regards, Stefan Weil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-02-23 21:50 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 46+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-01-27 8:29 [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-27 10:26 ` [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0.14] spice + usb Gerd Hoffmann 2011-01-27 12:34 ` [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Markus Armbruster 2011-01-27 12:42 ` Kevin Wolf 2011-01-27 15:13 ` Markus Armbruster 2011-01-27 16:30 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-27 16:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] fix crash when a read handler calls qemu_set_fd_handler2() Rick Vernam 2011-01-27 17:14 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-27 19:50 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2011-01-28 0:38 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-27 16:51 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] seabios virtio bug Rick Vernam 2011-01-27 17:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-27 17:30 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-01-28 7:51 ` [Qemu-devel] [0.14] Queue of 0.14 patches/pull? Gleb Natapov 2011-01-27 18:22 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-01-28 8:06 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 2011-01-28 10:00 ` Michael Tokarev 2011-01-28 13:33 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-28 14:21 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 2011-02-02 9:31 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-02-03 4:44 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 2011-01-28 16:48 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-01-29 13:43 ` Yoshiaki Tamura 2011-01-28 6:43 ` [Qemu-devel] " Amit Shah 2011-02-02 19:28 ` [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes) Stefan Weil 2011-02-02 21:25 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-02-03 7:00 ` Riku Voipio 2011-02-03 10:05 ` [Qemu-devel] " Markus Armbruster 2011-02-04 12:30 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-04 12:37 ` Paolo Bonzini 2011-02-04 14:40 ` Alexander Graf 2011-02-04 15:27 ` Markus Armbruster 2011-02-04 15:38 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-04 16:42 ` Luiz Capitulino 2011-02-04 17:18 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-04 17:21 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-04 17:36 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-04 17:59 ` Anthony Liguori 2011-02-07 18:54 ` Luiz Capitulino 2011-02-07 19:18 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-16 20:26 ` Stefan Weil 2011-02-16 20:39 ` Markus Armbruster 2011-02-04 15:45 ` malc 2011-02-05 19:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-02-05 19:34 ` riku voipio 2011-02-23 21:50 ` Stefan Weil
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.