From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750938Ab3HSP0P (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:26:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:55388 "EHLO mail-pd0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750833Ab3HSP0N (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:26:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:26:10 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Peter Maydell Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Paul Gortmaker , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , QEMU Developers , Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] SCSI bus failures with qemu-arm in kernel 3.8+ Message-ID: <20130819152610.GA28431@roeck-us.net> References: <52082EF8.10005@roeck-us.net> <20130813034054.GA18218@roeck-us.net> <20130815175428.GA18580@roeck-us.net> <20130815205044.GA21599@roeck-us.net> <520D53CA.6040807@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:23:58PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 15 August 2013 23:18, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > But doesn't that mean that there is _currently_ no problem ? If so, > > we can introduce the additional code when the problem really shows up. > > Being Preemptive is good, but if it is not really needed today > > I would rather have today's problems resolved and bother about tomorrow's > > when they show up. > > Conceptually the two parts go together: rely on correct > irq routing, tell qemu we rely on correct irq routing. > It's only one extra line... > Possibly, but the lack of progress suggests that by tying both parts together we might get neither accepted. Old saying - surgery successful, patient dead. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48741) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VBRLY-0007W8-Cf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:26:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VBRLS-0001Zk-IH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:26:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]:36989) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VBRLS-0001ZX-BS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:26:14 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id y10so5359418pdj.36 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Guenter Roeck Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:26:10 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <20130819152610.GA28431@roeck-us.net> References: <52082EF8.10005@roeck-us.net> <20130813034054.GA18218@roeck-us.net> <20130815175428.GA18580@roeck-us.net> <20130815205044.GA21599@roeck-us.net> <520D53CA.6040807@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] SCSI bus failures with qemu-arm in kernel 3.8+ List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , QEMU Developers , Paul Gortmaker , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:23:58PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 15 August 2013 23:18, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > But doesn't that mean that there is _currently_ no problem ? If so, > > we can introduce the additional code when the problem really shows up. > > Being Preemptive is good, but if it is not really needed today > > I would rather have today's problems resolved and bother about tomorrow's > > when they show up. > > Conceptually the two parts go together: rely on correct > irq routing, tell qemu we rely on correct irq routing. > It's only one extra line... > Possibly, but the lack of progress suggests that by tying both parts together we might get neither accepted. Old saying - surgery successful, patient dead. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:26:10 -0700 Subject: [Qemu-devel] SCSI bus failures with qemu-arm in kernel 3.8+ In-Reply-To: References: <52082EF8.10005@roeck-us.net> <20130813034054.GA18218@roeck-us.net> <20130815175428.GA18580@roeck-us.net> <20130815205044.GA21599@roeck-us.net> <520D53CA.6040807@roeck-us.net> Message-ID: <20130819152610.GA28431@roeck-us.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:23:58PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 15 August 2013 23:18, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > But doesn't that mean that there is _currently_ no problem ? If so, > > we can introduce the additional code when the problem really shows up. > > Being Preemptive is good, but if it is not really needed today > > I would rather have today's problems resolved and bother about tomorrow's > > when they show up. > > Conceptually the two parts go together: rely on correct > irq routing, tell qemu we rely on correct irq routing. > It's only one extra line... > Possibly, but the lack of progress suggests that by tying both parts together we might get neither accepted. Old saying - surgery successful, patient dead. Guenter