From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60637) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a67ys-00063v-El for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 21:26:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a67yp-0001hs-Ah for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 21:26:18 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53118) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a67yp-0001hE-5I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 21:26:15 -0500 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1D60A8B for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 02:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:26:03 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20151208022603.GC9380@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <1449467796-15856-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <5666046E.6050204@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5666046E.6050204@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 00/11] Add basic "detach" support for dump-guest-memory List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: drjones@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, famz@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com, lersek@redhat.com On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:13:02PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/06/2015 10:56 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > > - patch 8 > > - add "DumpQueryResult" in DUMP_COMPLETED event [Eric] > > (since DumpQueryResult is introduced in patch 10, so doing it in > > patch 10 for convenience. Please let me know if I should not do > > this, e.g., if patch re-ordering is required) > > All patches should build in isolation. It looks like you met that goal > (you introduce 'DUMP_COMPLETED' event in 8 without a 'result' member, > then modify it in 10), so that it at least builds. But it results in > churn, in that you have multiple different definitions of > 'DUMP_COMPLETED' over the life of the series. > > It's not a requirement to rework things since each step builds, but if I > were writing the series, I do find it conceptually easier to supply > patches in an order that minimizes churn (the first patch that > introduces a type uses its final form, rather than going through several > iterations of that type). So on that grounds, introducing > DumpQueryResult as a separate patch, before either DUMP_COMPLETED or > query-dump, might be easier to review, if there is a reason for a v6 spin. Yes, it's harder for review. Sorry for that. I think there should have a v6 spin, I will put DUMP_COMPLETE patch to the end of the patch set. Thanks. Peter