[Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

A set of small bugfixes for arm for 3.0; the "migration was
broken" fixes for SMMUv3 and v7M NVIC with security extensions
are the most significant.

thanks
-- PMM

The following changes since commit 6d9dd5fb9d0e9f4a174f53a0e20a39fbe809c71e:

  Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/armbru/tags/pull-qobject-2018-07-27-v2' into staging (2018-07-30 09:55:47 +0100)

are available in the Git repository at:

  git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20180730

for you to fetch changes up to 0261fb805c00a6f97d143235e7b06b0906bdf898:

  target/arm: Remove duplicate 'host' entry in '-cpu ?' output (2018-07-30 15:07:08 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
target-arm queue:
 * arm/smmuv3: Fix broken VM state migration
 * armv7m_nvic: Fix broken VM state migration
 * hw/arm/sysbus-fdt: Fix assertion in copy_properties_from_host()
 * hw/arm/iotkit: Fix IRQ number for timer1
 * hw/misc/tz-mpc: Zero the LUT on initialization, not just reset
 * target/arm: Remove duplicate 'host' entry in '-cpu ?' output

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Alan Gilbert (1):
      arm/smmuv3: Fix missing VMSD terminator

Geert Uytterhoeven (1):
      hw/arm/sysbus-fdt: Fix assertion in copy_properties_from_host()

Peter Maydell (3):
      armv7m_nvic: Fix m-security subsection name
      hw/arm/iotkit: Fix IRQ number for timer1
      hw/misc/tz-mpc: Zero the LUT on initialization, not just reset

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (1):
      target/arm: Remove duplicate 'host' entry in '-cpu ?' output

 hw/arm/iotkit.c       | 2 +-
 hw/arm/smmuv3.c       | 1 +
 hw/arm/sysbus-fdt.c   | 1 +
 hw/intc/armv7m_nvic.c | 2 +-
 hw/misc/tz-mpc.c      | 2 +-
 target/arm/helper.c   | 6 ------
 6 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 1/6] arm/smmuv3: Fix missing VMSD terminator

[Peter Maydell]

From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>

The 'vmstate_smmuv3_queue' is missing the end-of-list marker.

Fixes: 10a83cb9887
Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Message-id: 20180727135406.15132-1-dgilbert@redhat.com
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
[PMM: dropped stray blank line]
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
---
 hw/arm/smmuv3.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/hw/arm/smmuv3.c b/hw/arm/smmuv3.c
index 39fbcbf577c..bb6a24e9b84 100644
--- a/hw/arm/smmuv3.c
+++ b/hw/arm/smmuv3.c
@@ -1414,6 +1414,7 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_smmuv3_queue = {
         VMSTATE_UINT32(prod, SMMUQueue),
         VMSTATE_UINT32(cons, SMMUQueue),
         VMSTATE_UINT8(log2size, SMMUQueue),
+        VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST(),
     },
 };
 
-- 
2.17.1

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 2/6] hw/arm/sysbus-fdt: Fix assertion in copy_properties_from_host()

[Peter Maydell]

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>

When copy_properties_from_host() ignores the error for an optional
property, it frees the error, but fails to reset it.

Hence if two or more optional properties are missing, an assertion is
triggered:

    util/error.c:57: error_setv: Assertion `*errp == NULL' failed.

Fis this by resetting err to NULL after ignoring the error.

Fixes: 9481cf2e5f2f2bb6 ("hw/arm/sysbus-fdt: helpers for clock node generation")
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Message-id: 20180725113000.11014-1-geert+renesas@glider.be
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
---
 hw/arm/sysbus-fdt.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/hw/arm/sysbus-fdt.c b/hw/arm/sysbus-fdt.c
index 0d4c75702c3..43d6a7bb48d 100644
--- a/hw/arm/sysbus-fdt.c
+++ b/hw/arm/sysbus-fdt.c
@@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ static void copy_properties_from_host(HostProperty *props, int nb_props,
                 /* mandatory property not found: bail out */
                 exit(1);
             }
+            err = NULL;
         }
     }
 }
-- 
2.17.1

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/6] armv7m_nvic: Fix m-security subsection name

[Peter Maydell]

The vmstate save/load code insists that subsections of a VMState must
have names which include their parent VMState's name as a leading
substring.  Unfortunately it neither documents this nor checks it on
device init or state save, but instead fails state load with a
confusing error message ("Missing section footer for armv7m_nvic").

Fix the name of the m-security subsection of the NVIC, so that
state save/load works correctly for the security-enabled NVIC.

Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20180727113854.20283-2-peter.maydell@linaro.org
---
 hw/intc/armv7m_nvic.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/intc/armv7m_nvic.c b/hw/intc/armv7m_nvic.c
index 6be7fc5266d..cd1e7f17299 100644
--- a/hw/intc/armv7m_nvic.c
+++ b/hw/intc/armv7m_nvic.c
@@ -2064,7 +2064,7 @@ static int nvic_security_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id)
 }
 
 static const VMStateDescription vmstate_nvic_security = {
-    .name = "nvic/m-security",
+    .name = "armv7m_nvic/m-security",
     .version_id = 1,
     .minimum_version_id = 1,
     .needed = nvic_security_needed,
-- 
2.17.1

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 4/6] hw/arm/iotkit: Fix IRQ number for timer1

[Peter Maydell]

A cut-and-paste error meant we were incorrectly wiring up the timer1
IRQ to IRQ3. IRQ3 is the interrupt for timer0 -- move timer0 to
IRQ4 where it belongs.

Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
Message-id: 20180727113854.20283-3-peter.maydell@linaro.org
---
 hw/arm/iotkit.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/arm/iotkit.c b/hw/arm/iotkit.c
index c76d3ed7435..8cadc8b1608 100644
--- a/hw/arm/iotkit.c
+++ b/hw/arm/iotkit.c
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static void iotkit_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
         return;
     }
     sysbus_connect_irq(SYS_BUS_DEVICE(&s->timer1), 0,
-                       qdev_get_gpio_in(DEVICE(&s->armv7m), 3));
+                       qdev_get_gpio_in(DEVICE(&s->armv7m), 4));
     mr = sysbus_mmio_get_region(SYS_BUS_DEVICE(&s->timer1), 0);
     object_property_set_link(OBJECT(&s->apb_ppc0), OBJECT(mr), "port[1]", &err);
     if (err) {
-- 
2.17.1

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 5/6] hw/misc/tz-mpc: Zero the LUT on initialization, not just reset

[Peter Maydell]

In the tz-mpc device we allocate a data block for the LUT,
which we then clear to zero in the device's reset method.
This is conceptually fine, but unfortunately results in a
valgrind complaint about use of uninitialized data on startup:

==30906== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==30906==    at 0x503609: tz_mpc_translate (tz-mpc.c:439)
==30906==    by 0x3F3D90: address_space_translate_iommu (exec.c:511)
==30906==    by 0x3F3FF8: flatview_do_translate (exec.c:584)
==30906==    by 0x3F4292: flatview_translate (exec.c:644)
==30906==    by 0x3F2120: address_space_translate (memory.h:1962)
==30906==    by 0x3FB753: address_space_ldl_internal (memory_ldst.inc.c:36)
==30906==    by 0x3FB8A6: address_space_ldl (memory_ldst.inc.c:80)
==30906==    by 0x619037: ldl_phys (memory_ldst_phys.inc.h:25)
==30906==    by 0x61985D: arm_cpu_reset (cpu.c:255)
==30906==    by 0x98791B: cpu_reset (cpu.c:249)
==30906==    by 0x57FFDB: armv7m_reset (armv7m.c:265)
==30906==    by 0x7B1775: qemu_devices_reset (reset.c:69)

This is because of a reset ordering problem -- the TZ MPC
resets after the CPU, but an M-profile CPU's reset function
includes memory loads to get the initial PC and SP, which
then go through an MPC that hasn't yet been reset.

The simplest fix for this is to zero the LUT when we
initialize the data, which will result in the MPC's
translate function giving the right answers for these
early memory accesses.

Reported-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Message-id: 20180724153616.32352-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org
---
 hw/misc/tz-mpc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/misc/tz-mpc.c b/hw/misc/tz-mpc.c
index 8316079b4bf..e0c58ba37ec 100644
--- a/hw/misc/tz-mpc.c
+++ b/hw/misc/tz-mpc.c
@@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ static void tz_mpc_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
     address_space_init(&s->blocked_io_as, &s->blocked_io,
                        "tz-mpc-blocked-io");
 
-    s->blk_lut = g_new(uint32_t, s->blk_max);
+    s->blk_lut = g_new0(uint32_t, s->blk_max);
 }
 
 static int tz_mpc_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id)
-- 
2.17.1

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 6/6] target/arm: Remove duplicate 'host' entry in '-cpu ?' output

[Peter Maydell]

From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>

Since 86f0a186d6f the TYPE_ARM_HOST_CPU is only compiled when CONFIG_KVM
is enabled.

Remove the now redundant special-case introduced in a96c0514ab7, to avoid:

  $ qemu-system-aarch64 -machine virt -cpu \? | fgrep host
  host
  host (only available in KVM mode)

Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
Message-id: 20180727132311.2777-1-f4bug@amsat.org
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
---
 target/arm/helper.c | 6 ------
 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c
index 22d812240af..66afb08ee0f 100644
--- a/target/arm/helper.c
+++ b/target/arm/helper.c
@@ -5591,12 +5591,6 @@ void arm_cpu_list(FILE *f, fprintf_function cpu_fprintf)
     (*cpu_fprintf)(f, "Available CPUs:\n");
     g_slist_foreach(list, arm_cpu_list_entry, &s);
     g_slist_free(list);
-#ifdef CONFIG_KVM
-    /* The 'host' CPU type is dynamically registered only if KVM is
-     * enabled, so we have to special-case it here:
-     */
-    (*cpu_fprintf)(f, "  host (only available in KVM mode)\n");
-#endif
 }
 
 static void arm_cpu_add_definition(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

On 30 July 2018 at 15:17, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> A set of small bugfixes for arm for 3.0; the "migration was
> broken" fixes for SMMUv3 and v7M NVIC with security extensions
> are the most significant.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
> The following changes since commit 6d9dd5fb9d0e9f4a174f53a0e20a39fbe809c71e:
>
>   Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/armbru/tags/pull-qobject-2018-07-27-v2' into staging (2018-07-30 09:55:47 +0100)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
>   git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20180730
>
> for you to fetch changes up to 0261fb805c00a6f97d143235e7b06b0906bdf898:
>
>   target/arm: Remove duplicate 'host' entry in '-cpu ?' output (2018-07-30 15:07:08 +0100)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> target-arm queue:
>  * arm/smmuv3: Fix broken VM state migration
>  * armv7m_nvic: Fix broken VM state migration
>  * hw/arm/sysbus-fdt: Fix assertion in copy_properties_from_host()
>  * hw/arm/iotkit: Fix IRQ number for timer1
>  * hw/misc/tz-mpc: Zero the LUT on initialization, not just reset
>  * target/arm: Remove duplicate 'host' entry in '-cpu ?' output
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

Applied, thanks.

-- PMM

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

Last lot of patches for arm before softfreeze tomorrow...

thanks
-- PMM

The following changes since commit ef3a6af5e789ff078d1fef880f9dfb6adf18e8f1:

  Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/kraxel/tags/vga-20181029-pull-request' into staging (2018-10-29 12:59:15 +0000)

are available in the Git repository at:

  https://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20181029

for you to fetch changes up to 20cf5663734310a282e27b7389bc9f53ffe227e6:

  tests/boot-serial-test: Add microbit board testcase (2018-10-29 15:19:48 +0000)

----------------------------------------------------------------
target-arm queue:
 * microbit: Add the UART to our nRF51 SoC model
 * Add a virtual Xilinx Versal board "xlnx-versal-virt"
 * hw/arm/virt: Set VIRT_COMPAT_3_0 compat

----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar E. Iglesias (2):
      hw/arm: versal: Add a model of Xilinx Versal SoC
      hw/arm: versal: Add a virtual Xilinx Versal board

Eric Auger (1):
      hw/arm/virt: Set VIRT_COMPAT_3_0 compat

Julia Suvorova (3):
      hw/char: Implement nRF51 SoC UART
      hw/arm/nrf51_soc: Connect UART to nRF51 SoC
      tests/boot-serial-test: Add microbit board testcase

 hw/arm/Makefile.objs                |   1 +
 hw/char/Makefile.objs               |   1 +
 include/hw/arm/nrf51_soc.h          |   3 +
 include/hw/arm/xlnx-versal.h        | 122 +++++++++
 include/hw/char/nrf51_uart.h        |  78 ++++++
 hw/arm/microbit.c                   |   2 +
 hw/arm/nrf51_soc.c                  |  20 ++
 hw/arm/virt.c                       |   4 +
 hw/arm/xlnx-versal-virt.c           | 493 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 hw/arm/xlnx-versal.c                | 323 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 hw/char/nrf51_uart.c                | 330 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/boot-serial-test.c            |  19 ++
 default-configs/aarch64-softmmu.mak |   1 +
 hw/char/trace-events                |   4 +
 14 files changed, 1401 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 include/hw/arm/xlnx-versal.h
 create mode 100644 include/hw/char/nrf51_uart.h
 create mode 100644 hw/arm/xlnx-versal-virt.c
 create mode 100644 hw/arm/xlnx-versal.c
 create mode 100644 hw/char/nrf51_uart.c

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

On 7 July 2016 at 14:48, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> This week's collection of target-arm bugfixes...
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
>
> The following changes since commit 5563168c530e2cde8e000ee7aa4afc0ea4d0b42e:
>
>   Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/jasowang/tags/net-pull-request' into staging (2016-07-07 10:29:05 +0100)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
>
>   git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20160707
>
> for you to fetch changes up to 66542f639927bd1420db38a969d5fa8ad1c89ae1:
>
>   i.MX: split the GPT timer implementation into per SOC definitions (2016-07-07 13:47:01 +0100)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> target-arm queue:
>  * fix a wrong variable type for A64 SYS_HEAPINFO semihosting call
>  * xlnx_dp: fix iffy xlnx_dp_aux_push_tx_fifo
>  * aux: fix break that wanted to break two levels out
>  * aux: Rename aux.[ch] to auxbus.[ch] for the benefit of Windows
>  * hw/block/m25p80: fix resource leak
>  * i.MX: split the GPT timer implementation into per SOC definitions
>

Applied, thanks.

-- PMM

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

This week's collection of target-arm bugfixes...

thanks
-- PMM


The following changes since commit 5563168c530e2cde8e000ee7aa4afc0ea4d0b42e:

  Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/jasowang/tags/net-pull-request' into staging (2016-07-07 10:29:05 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:


  git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20160707

for you to fetch changes up to 66542f639927bd1420db38a969d5fa8ad1c89ae1:

  i.MX: split the GPT timer implementation into per SOC definitions (2016-07-07 13:47:01 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
target-arm queue:
 * fix a wrong variable type for A64 SYS_HEAPINFO semihosting call
 * xlnx_dp: fix iffy xlnx_dp_aux_push_tx_fifo
 * aux: fix break that wanted to break two levels out
 * aux: Rename aux.[ch] to auxbus.[ch] for the benefit of Windows
 * hw/block/m25p80: fix resource leak
 * i.MX: split the GPT timer implementation into per SOC definitions

----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Christophe Dubois (1):
      i.MX: split the GPT timer implementation into per SOC definitions

Paolo Bonzini (2):
      xlnx_dp: fix iffy xlnx_dp_aux_push_tx_fifo
      aux: fix break that wanted to break two levels out

Peter Maydell (2):
      target-arm/arm-semi.c: In SYS_HEAPINFO use correct type for 'limit'
      aux: Rename aux.[ch] to auxbus.[ch] for the benefit of Windows

Shannon Zhao (1):
      hw/block/m25p80: fix resource leak

 hw/arm/fsl-imx25.c                  |  2 +-
 hw/arm/fsl-imx31.c                  |  2 +-
 hw/arm/fsl-imx6.c                   |  2 +-
 hw/block/m25p80.c                   |  6 ++--
 hw/display/dpcd.c                   |  2 +-
 hw/display/xlnx_dp.c                | 10 +++---
 hw/misc/Makefile.objs               |  2 +-
 hw/misc/{aux.c => auxbus.c}         | 16 ++++-----
 hw/misc/imx6_ccm.c                  |  6 ++++
 hw/timer/imx_gpt.c                  | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 include/hw/display/xlnx_dp.h        |  2 +-
 include/hw/misc/{aux.h => auxbus.h} |  2 +-
 include/hw/misc/imx_ccm.h           |  5 ++-
 include/hw/timer/imx_gpt.h          |  9 ++++-
 target-arm/arm-semi.c               |  2 +-
 15 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
 rename hw/misc/{aux.c => auxbus.c} (97%)
 rename include/hw/misc/{aux.h => auxbus.h} (99%)

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

On 19 March 2014 12:05, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> Last target-arm pull before rc1. I don't know of any further outstanding
> ARM related issues which would need to be fixed for 2.0 so barring any
> late-breaking bug reports I think this should be it until release.

Applied, thanks.

-- PMM

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

Last target-arm pull before rc1. I don't know of any further outstanding
ARM related issues which would need to be fixed for 2.0 so barring any
late-breaking bug reports I think this should be it until release.

thanks
-- PMM

The following changes since commit 059b3527f0229f4d60fd77a317503d42abd5e50f:

  Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/kraxel/tags/pull-vnc-2' into staging (2014-03-18 16:39:29 +0000)

are available in the git repository at:


  git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20140319

for you to fetch changes up to 09e037354b6f940c18f417f23355cffd23f4fde5:

  target-arm: A64: Add saturating accumulate ops (USQADD/SUQADD) (2014-03-18 23:10:06 +0000)

----------------------------------------------------------------
target-arm queue:
 * last few A64 Neon instructions
 * fix some PL011 UART bugs causing occasional serial lockups
 * fix the non-PCI AHCI device

----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Bennée (2):
      target-arm: A64: Add saturating int ops (SQNEG/SQABS)
      target-arm: A64: Add saturating accumulate ops (USQADD/SUQADD)

Rob Herring (4):
      ahci: fix sysbus support
      pl011: reset the fifo when enabled or disabled
      pl011: fix UARTRSR accesses corrupting the UARTCR value
      pl011: fix incorrect logic to set the RXFF flag

 hw/char/pl011.c            |  24 ++++--
 hw/ide/ahci.c              |  13 ++--
 target-arm/helper.h        |  34 ++++++---
 target-arm/neon_helper.c   | 187 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 target-arm/translate-a64.c | 160 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 5 files changed, 383 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Edgar E. Iglesias]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 03:18:41PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 31.10.2013 15:02, schrieb Edgar E. Iglesias:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:07:23PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> The following changes since commit fc8ead74674b7129e8f31c2595c76658e5622197:
> >>
> >>   Merge remote-tracking branch 'qemu-kvm/uq/master' into staging (2013-10-18 10:03:24 -0700)
> >>
> >> are available in the git repository at:
> >>
> >>
> >>   git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20131025
> >>
> >> for you to fetch changes up to 71c903cc3b78fc563122fe40c5cadd050068b91a:
> >>
> >>   integrator: fix Linux boot failure by emulating dbg region (2013-10-25 18:27:07 +0100)
> > 
> > 
> > Applied, thanks all.
> 
> Edgar, there is no merge commit in qemu.git despite this being a signed
> pull. Do you maybe need to upgrade your version of git?

Hi, thanks for letting me know, I'll make sure to keep the merge commit
next time.

Cheers,
Edgar

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Anthony Liguori]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 16:16, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>>
>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by.
>>
>> I checked my mail and the only thing I can find in reply to those
>> patches is a note from you saying you added them to your queue.
>
> Right, and as such they got a Signed-off-by, which should've been
> visible in the link I usually add. Here's the pull messages you
> should've been cc'ed on:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/281630/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/281575/
>
> I don't see why I should reply with a Reviewed-by when I pick up patches
> - again, same discussion as at QEMU Summit.
>
>>> It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>
>> ...but you're not the submaintainer here so I don't think this applies.
>
> It does, because you are the patch author and the ARM submaintainer
> sending the pull.
>
>> The point about the kernel practice as I understood it was that
>> the kernel folks treat acked-by at about the same level of review as
>> "looks ok to me" (ie, very little), not that there's some obligation to
>> treat any informal 'looks ok' note as an acked-by. I'm in full agreement
>> with Anthony that if you want a tag to appear you should send it
>> properly.
>
> If Anthony had been and would be more responsive as to why he didn't
> pull the queue containing these patches with two different Sobs, we
> wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Or had you not
> gone on vacation or sent another pull before etc. etc.

Your tree is broken.  I gave you the errors that it produced.  You
were able to produce your own errors.  It's your responsibility, as a
subsystem maintainer, to test (and fix) your own tree.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Anthony Liguori]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.  If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:".  Don't
>>>> make people infer your Acked-bys.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there.
>>> Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise.
>>
>> I explicitly said that Acked-bys are useless too.
>>
>> The minutes say that you said the kernel treats "Acked-bys" as "looks
>> good".  You did say that.
>
> I *asked* about what to do with my QEMU CPU patches that only get a
> "looks okay" and got only positive answers for whether that should be an
> Acked-by and no objection, including none from you.
> I certainly said nothing at all about the kernel.
>
>>  At no point did a "rule" get made though.
>
> The new rule you made was: no patch without Reviewed-by.

Andreas, I have no idea where you're getting this from.  I think you
misunderstood what was discussed at the QEMU Summit.  Again, there are
no new rules.  I spoke about encouraging more reviews on list because
it's something we need to focus on as a community.

I think you need to step back a bit and give folks the benefit of the
doubt.  No one is doing anything malicious here.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Peter sending that PULL and Edgar merging it both violate that rule.
> No objection against a particular patch function-wise.
>
> Point is, had Peter ping'ed me before sending out that pull, he would've
> actually gotten a Reviewed-by from me, thereby satisfying your rule! He
> didn't, ignoring that he himself had actually told me to queue the
> patches before his vacation, for which obviously I reviewed and tested them.
>
> Maybe there's no obligation for picking up tags, but then again you
> can't go ahead and do statistics over incompletely recorded tags.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
>>> I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and
>>> submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all,
>>> such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was
>>> told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to
>>> satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as
>>> pull without Reviewed-by.
>>
>> I think you misunderstood.
>>
>> I don't care about Acked-bys.  They are useless.
>>
>> A third of patches are being committed with Reviewed-bys.  There are
>> certainly many cases where patches are going in from submaintainers
>> that have been reviewed which comes implicitly with Signed-off-by.
>>
>> But I worry that we're not reviewing enough on list and that there are
>> patches from maintainers going in through maintainer trees that aren't
>> getting outside review.
>>
>> There's no immediate action for this other than we should all try to
>> review more patches on list to prevent the above situation.
>>
>>>> And adding tags is a nice-to-have.  There is no "rule" stating that
>>>> you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list.  But I
>>>> expect that maintainers try to
>>>
>>> Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and
>>> we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and
>>> what to do if author==submaintainer. If you dropped that thought, then
>>> fine with me.
>>
>> Yes, patches should get reviewed.  I hope this is obvious to all of us :-)
>>
>> I also suggested that I have tooling that people can use to simplify
>> adding collected Reviewed-bys on the list.
>>
>> But none of this has anything to do with inferred Acked-bys.  I'll go
>> a step further and say that I would be very unhappy if anyone every
>> added any kind of tag to a patch with my name on it that I didn't send
>> myself.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> --
>>> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>>> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
>
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

On 31 October 2013 17:27, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 18:18, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 31 October 2013 17:14, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Am 31.10.2013 16:16, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>> It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>>>
>>>> ...but you're not the submaintainer here so I don't think this applies.
>>>
>>> It does, because you are the patch author and the ARM submaintainer
>>> sending the pull.
>>
>> Er, no, because they're ARM subsystem patches.
>
> You misunderstand. You sending an ARM patch in your ARM PULL with just
> your Sob is the same as me sending a CPU patch with just my Sob in my
> CPU PULL.

I agree with this...

> That's what I was saying.

...it's just not at all what you seemed to be saying. I think this is
related to a disagreement about whether acked-by is at all meaningful
for anybody who's not the relevant subsystem maintainer or otherwise
an "authoritative person".

> It is NOT about whether someone can veto something, it's about getting
> external review and formally recognizing that review.

No, that's what Reviewed-by is for. Acked-by is exactly a statement
that "I think this looks OK and my opinion matters", which is implicitly
making the statement that it's not a NAK, ie not a veto. It's a handy
way to avoid somebody further upstream having to make an explicit
query of that person about whether they'd seen this stuff and were
happy with it, nothing more.

So, to be clear:
 * I welcome external review
 * If I get review and people send emails to the list with reviewed-by:
   tags I'll do my best (and my workflow generally helps) to pick up
   and reflect those tags in the pull requests
 * I'm not going to attempt to infer reviewed-by tags from anything
   other than a specific reply to the list with a tag in the proper format
 * pragmatically speaking there are some patches for ARM which do
   not get any third-party review and where patches have been on list
   for a reasonable period of time I'm going to put them in pull requests,
   since we can't stop the world just because we don't have enough
   people willing to code review things
 * acked-by doesn't imply (to me) any kind of level of review beyond "I don't
   object to this", so it is irrelevant for the purposes of "try to make sure
   patches get review" (which is a goal I agree with)
 * nonetheless I'll generally reflect specifically sent acked-by tags
   where I get them, simply because my usual workflow tends to
   result in that
 * I think a general rule that all tags should be sent to the list explicitly
   and nobody should infer them will be simpler and less confusing
   for all concerned

> If Anthony is apparently making a retreat on that front

I don't recall Anthony ever saying that external review was going
to be mandatory. I think it's certainly something we should try to
do better with, but pragmatically speaking we're not going to get
to 100% reviewed overnight. I'd definitely object to any proposal
to enforce full code review by simply refusing to apply nonreviewed
patches now (and I don't think anybody's proposed that).

>, then we don't
> necessarily need external review on our own subsystems, but if we want
> to evaluate which or how many patches have been reviewed by someone else
> then we need to record that in the commit message in *some* way. I don't
> care what -by it is as long as we have and respect a clear rule.

I don't think the rules have ever changed here; they've been broadly
described in the kernel doc that our wiki page points to for at least a
year. If you've reviewed a patch you mark that with Reviewed-by.

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Andreas Färber]

Am 31.10.2013 18:18, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 31 October 2013 17:14, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> Am 31.10.2013 16:16, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>> It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>>
>>> ...but you're not the submaintainer here so I don't think this applies.
>>
>> It does, because you are the patch author and the ARM submaintainer
>> sending the pull.
> 
> Er, no, because they're ARM subsystem patches.

You misunderstand. You sending an ARM patch in your ARM PULL with just
your Sob is the same as me sending a CPU patch with just my Sob in my
CPU PULL. That's what I was saying.

It is NOT about whether someone can veto something, it's about getting
external review and formally recognizing that review.
If Anthony is apparently making a retreat on that front, then we don't
necessarily need external review on our own subsystems, but if we want
to evaluate which or how many patches have been reviewed by someone else
then we need to record that in the commit message in *some* way. I don't
care what -by it is as long as we have and respect a clear rule.

Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

On 31 October 2013 17:14, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 16:16, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>> It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>
>> ...but you're not the submaintainer here so I don't think this applies.
>
> It does, because you are the patch author and the ARM submaintainer
> sending the pull.

Er, no, because they're ARM subsystem patches. If they'd gone through
your queue and been written by somebody other than me and I'd given
them an acked-by, that would be worth noting (maybe) because it tells
the person applying your queue that I'm happy with these ARM related
patches even though they're not coming through the ARM queue.
Similarly if there were some QOM patches coming through my queue
that might make an acked-by from you useful. But these aren't QOM
patches, they're plain ARM patches, so the only person whose "ack"
is important is mine. Basically an 'ack' says "I have some kind of veto
over these patches and I'm not exercising it".

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

On 31 October 2013 17:02, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> I told you to queue the patches because you needed them as prereqs
> and I was expecting the timing to work out such that you'd get a pullreq
> taken so they'd get upstream while I was away.
> Since it didn't and I wanted them in 1.7 I put them in my pullreq (which
> is technically the better place for them since they're ARM patches, not
> QOM ones). I don't see this as a big deal.

...also, to be honest, by the time I got back from holiday I'd pretty
much forgotten about this and they were just another set of patches
in my list of "this should go in and isn't in upstream yet". Sorry for
any confusion.

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Andreas Färber]

Am 31.10.2013 16:16, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>
>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>
>> No, I added a Signed-off-by.
> 
> I checked my mail and the only thing I can find in reply to those
> patches is a note from you saying you added them to your queue.

Right, and as such they got a Signed-off-by, which should've been
visible in the link I usually add. Here's the pull messages you
should've been cc'ed on:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/281630/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/281575/

I don't see why I should reply with a Reviewed-by when I pick up patches
- again, same discussion as at QEMU Summit.

>> It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
> 
> ...but you're not the submaintainer here so I don't think this applies.

It does, because you are the patch author and the ARM submaintainer
sending the pull.

> The point about the kernel practice as I understood it was that
> the kernel folks treat acked-by at about the same level of review as
> "looks ok to me" (ie, very little), not that there's some obligation to
> treat any informal 'looks ok' note as an acked-by. I'm in full agreement
> with Anthony that if you want a tag to appear you should send it
> properly.

If Anthony had been and would be more responsive as to why he didn't
pull the queue containing these patches with two different Sobs, we
wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Or had you not
gone on vacation or sent another pull before etc. etc.

Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Andreas Färber]

Am 31.10.2013 17:54, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> The new rule you made was: no patch without Reviewed-by.
>> Peter sending that PULL and Edgar merging it both violate that rule.
> 
> I never said anything like that.

I could've sworn you did and that prompted Peter(?) to ask whether
submaintainers taking a patch from someone else should add a
Reviewed-by, too...

Then this whole discussion is moot and we just need to fix the minutes:

http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg199693.html

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

On 31 October 2013 16:52, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> I *asked* about what to do with my QEMU CPU patches that only get a
> "looks okay" and got only positive answers for whether that should be an
> Acked-by and no objection, including none from you.

I agreed with that because IMHO you may treat a "looks ok" from
a relevant subsystem maintainer like an acked-by. There is no
*obligation* to do so -- it's merely that if you think it's worth
noting and it will help get your patches upstream you can.

> Point is, had Peter ping'ed me before sending out that pull, he would've
> actually gotten a Reviewed-by from me, thereby satisfying your rule! He
> didn't, ignoring that he himself had actually told me to queue the
> patches before his vacation, for which obviously I reviewed and tested them.

I told you to queue the patches because you needed them as prereqs
and I was expecting the timing to work out such that you'd get a pullreq
taken so they'd get upstream while I was away.
Since it didn't and I wanted them in 1.7 I put them in my pullreq (which
is technically the better place for them since they're ARM patches, not
QOM ones). I don't see this as a big deal.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Anthony Liguori]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.  If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:".  Don't
>>>> make people infer your Acked-bys.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there.
>>> Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise.
>>
>> I explicitly said that Acked-bys are useless too.
>>
>> The minutes say that you said the kernel treats "Acked-bys" as "looks
>> good".  You did say that.
>
> I *asked* about what to do with my QEMU CPU patches that only get a
> "looks okay" and got only positive answers for whether that should be an
> Acked-by and no objection, including none from you.
> I certainly said nothing at all about the kernel.
>
>>  At no point did a "rule" get made though.
>
> The new rule you made was: no patch without Reviewed-by.
> Peter sending that PULL and Edgar merging it both violate that rule.

I never said anything like that.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> No objection against a particular patch function-wise.
>
> Point is, had Peter ping'ed me before sending out that pull, he would've
> actually gotten a Reviewed-by from me, thereby satisfying your rule! He
> didn't, ignoring that he himself had actually told me to queue the
> patches before his vacation, for which obviously I reviewed and tested them.
>
> Maybe there's no obligation for picking up tags, but then again you
> can't go ahead and do statistics over incompletely recorded tags.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
>>> I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and
>>> submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all,
>>> such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was
>>> told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to
>>> satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as
>>> pull without Reviewed-by.
>>
>> I think you misunderstood.
>>
>> I don't care about Acked-bys.  They are useless.
>>
>> A third of patches are being committed with Reviewed-bys.  There are
>> certainly many cases where patches are going in from submaintainers
>> that have been reviewed which comes implicitly with Signed-off-by.
>>
>> But I worry that we're not reviewing enough on list and that there are
>> patches from maintainers going in through maintainer trees that aren't
>> getting outside review.
>>
>> There's no immediate action for this other than we should all try to
>> review more patches on list to prevent the above situation.
>>
>>>> And adding tags is a nice-to-have.  There is no "rule" stating that
>>>> you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list.  But I
>>>> expect that maintainers try to
>>>
>>> Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and
>>> we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and
>>> what to do if author==submaintainer. If you dropped that thought, then
>>> fine with me.
>>
>> Yes, patches should get reviewed.  I hope this is obvious to all of us :-)
>>
>> I also suggested that I have tooling that people can use to simplify
>> adding collected Reviewed-bys on the list.
>>
>> But none of this has anything to do with inferred Acked-bys.  I'll go
>> a step further and say that I would be very unhappy if anyone every
>> added any kind of tag to a patch with my name on it that I didn't send
>> myself.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> --
>>> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>>> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
>
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Andreas Färber]

Am 31.10.2013 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>>>
>>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>>
>>> Nope.  If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:".  Don't
>>> make people infer your Acked-bys.
>>
>> Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there.
>> Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise.
> 
> I explicitly said that Acked-bys are useless too.
> 
> The minutes say that you said the kernel treats "Acked-bys" as "looks
> good".  You did say that.

I *asked* about what to do with my QEMU CPU patches that only get a
"looks okay" and got only positive answers for whether that should be an
Acked-by and no objection, including none from you.
I certainly said nothing at all about the kernel.

>  At no point did a "rule" get made though.

The new rule you made was: no patch without Reviewed-by.
Peter sending that PULL and Edgar merging it both violate that rule.
No objection against a particular patch function-wise.

Point is, had Peter ping'ed me before sending out that pull, he would've
actually gotten a Reviewed-by from me, thereby satisfying your rule! He
didn't, ignoring that he himself had actually told me to queue the
patches before his vacation, for which obviously I reviewed and tested them.

Maybe there's no obligation for picking up tags, but then again you
can't go ahead and do statistics over incompletely recorded tags.

Regards,
Andreas

>> I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and
>> submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all,
>> such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was
>> told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to
>> satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as
>> pull without Reviewed-by.
> 
> I think you misunderstood.
> 
> I don't care about Acked-bys.  They are useless.
> 
> A third of patches are being committed with Reviewed-bys.  There are
> certainly many cases where patches are going in from submaintainers
> that have been reviewed which comes implicitly with Signed-off-by.
> 
> But I worry that we're not reviewing enough on list and that there are
> patches from maintainers going in through maintainer trees that aren't
> getting outside review.
> 
> There's no immediate action for this other than we should all try to
> review more patches on list to prevent the above situation.
> 
>>> And adding tags is a nice-to-have.  There is no "rule" stating that
>>> you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list.  But I
>>> expect that maintainers try to
>>
>> Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and
>> we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and
>> what to do if author==submaintainer. If you dropped that thought, then
>> fine with me.
> 
> Yes, patches should get reviewed.  I hope this is obvious to all of us :-)
> 
> I also suggested that I have tooling that people can use to simplify
> adding collected Reviewed-bys on the list.
> 
> But none of this has anything to do with inferred Acked-bys.  I'll go
> a step further and say that I would be very unhappy if anyone every
> added any kind of tag to a patch with my name on it that I didn't send
> myself.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Anthony Liguori
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>> --
>> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg


-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>
>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>
> No, I added a Signed-off-by.

I checked my mail and the only thing I can find in reply to those
patches is a note from you saying you added them to your queue.

> It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.

...but you're not the submaintainer here so I don't think this applies.

The point about the kernel practice as I understood it was that
the kernel folks treat acked-by at about the same level of review as
"looks ok to me" (ie, very little), not that there's some obligation to
treat any informal 'looks ok' note as an acked-by. I'm in full agreement
with Anthony that if you want a tag to appear you should send it
properly.

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Anthony Liguori]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>>
>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>
>> Nope.  If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:".  Don't
>> make people infer your Acked-bys.
>
> Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there.
> Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise.

I explicitly said that Acked-bys are useless too.

The minutes say that you said the kernel treats "Acked-bys" as "looks
good".  You did say that.  At no point did a "rule" get made though.

> I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and
> submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all,
> such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was
> told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to
> satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as
> pull without Reviewed-by.

I think you misunderstood.

I don't care about Acked-bys.  They are useless.

A third of patches are being committed with Reviewed-bys.  There are
certainly many cases where patches are going in from submaintainers
that have been reviewed which comes implicitly with Signed-off-by.

But I worry that we're not reviewing enough on list and that there are
patches from maintainers going in through maintainer trees that aren't
getting outside review.

There's no immediate action for this other than we should all try to
review more patches on list to prevent the above situation.

>> And adding tags is a nice-to-have.  There is no "rule" stating that
>> you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list.  But I
>> expect that maintainers try to
>
> Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and
> we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and
> what to do if author==submaintainer. If you dropped that thought, then
> fine with me.

Yes, patches should get reviewed.  I hope this is obvious to all of us :-)

I also suggested that I have tooling that people can use to simplify
adding collected Reviewed-bys on the list.

But none of this has anything to do with inferred Acked-bys.  I'll go
a step further and say that I would be very unhappy if anyone every
added any kind of tag to a patch with my name on it that I didn't send
myself.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Anthony Liguori]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>>
>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>
>> Nope.  If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:".  Don't
>> make people infer your Acked-bys.
>
> Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there.
> Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise.

I

> I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and
> submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all,
> such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was
> told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to
> satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as
> pull without Reviewed-by.
>
>> And adding tags is a nice-to-have.  There is no "rule" stating that
>> you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list.  But I
>> expect that maintainers try to
>
> Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and
> we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and
> what to do if author==submaintainer. If you dropped that thought, then
> fine with me.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Andreas Färber]

Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>
>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>
>> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
> 
> Nope.  If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:".  Don't
> make people infer your Acked-bys.

Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there.
Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise.

I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and
submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all,
such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was
told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to
satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as
pull without Reviewed-by.

> And adding tags is a nice-to-have.  There is no "rule" stating that
> you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list.  But I
> expect that maintainers try to

Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and
we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and
what to do if author==submaintainer. If you dropped that thought, then
fine with me.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Anthony Liguori]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>
>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>
> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.

Nope.  If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:".  Don't
make people infer your Acked-bys.

And adding tags is a nice-to-have.  There is no "rule" stating that
you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list.  But I
expect that maintainers try to

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Andreas Färber]

Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>> gotten an Acked-by.
> 
> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
> to the list with an Acked-by line.

No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.

Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
> gotten an Acked-by.

Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
to the list with an Acked-by line.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Anthony Liguori]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 31.10.2013 15:02, schrieb Edgar E. Iglesias:
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:07:23PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> The following changes since commit fc8ead74674b7129e8f31c2595c76658e5622197:
>>>
>>>   Merge remote-tracking branch 'qemu-kvm/uq/master' into staging (2013-10-18 10:03:24 -0700)
>>>
>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>
>>>
>>>   git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20131025
>>>
>>> for you to fetch changes up to 71c903cc3b78fc563122fe40c5cadd050068b91a:
>>>
>>>   integrator: fix Linux boot failure by emulating dbg region (2013-10-25 18:27:07 +0100)
>>
>>
>> Applied, thanks all.
>
> Edgar, there is no merge commit in qemu.git despite this being a signed
> pull. Do you maybe need to upgrade your version of git?

Need to add:

[merge]
 ff = false

To your git config to prevent fast forwards on merging.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
> gotten an Acked-by.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Andreas Färber]

Hi,

Am 31.10.2013 15:02, schrieb Edgar E. Iglesias:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:07:23PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> The following changes since commit fc8ead74674b7129e8f31c2595c76658e5622197:
>>
>>   Merge remote-tracking branch 'qemu-kvm/uq/master' into staging (2013-10-18 10:03:24 -0700)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>>
>>   git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20131025
>>
>> for you to fetch changes up to 71c903cc3b78fc563122fe40c5cadd050068b91a:
>>
>>   integrator: fix Linux boot failure by emulating dbg region (2013-10-25 18:27:07 +0100)
> 
> 
> Applied, thanks all.

Edgar, there is no merge commit in qemu.git despite this being a signed
pull. Do you maybe need to upgrade your version of git?

Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
gotten an Acked-by.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Edgar E. Iglesias]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:07:23PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> The following changes since commit fc8ead74674b7129e8f31c2595c76658e5622197:
> 
>   Merge remote-tracking branch 'qemu-kvm/uq/master' into staging (2013-10-18 10:03:24 -0700)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
> 
> 
>   git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20131025
> 
> for you to fetch changes up to 71c903cc3b78fc563122fe40c5cadd050068b91a:
> 
>   integrator: fix Linux boot failure by emulating dbg region (2013-10-25 18:27:07 +0100)


Applied, thanks all.

Cheers,
Edgar


> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> target-arm queue: a couple of trivial features to improve support
> for some guest emulation cases, notably running UEFI images:
>  * support VBAR (vector base address register)
>  * allow running without specifying a kernel (ie just running
>    an image from flash)
> Plus some bugfixes.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Alex Bennée (1):
>       integrator: fix Linux boot failure by emulating dbg region
> 
> Alvise Rigo (2):
>       target-arm: sort TCG cpreg list by KVM-style 64 bit ID number
>       target-arm: fix sorting issue of KVM cpreg list
> 
> Nathan Rossi (1):
>       target-arm: Add CP15 VBAR support
> 
> Peter Maydell (2):
>       hw/arm/boot: Make user not specifying a kernel not an error
>       hw/arm: Tidy up conditional calls to arm_load_kernel
> 
>  default-configs/arm-softmmu.mak        |    1 +
>  hw/arm/boot.c                          |    6 +-
>  hw/arm/integratorcp.c                  |    2 +
>  hw/arm/omap_sx1.c                      |   10 ++--
>  hw/arm/palm.c                          |   10 ++--
>  hw/arm/z2.c                            |   12 ++--
>  hw/misc/Makefile.objs                  |    1 +
>  hw/misc/arm_integrator_debug.c         |   99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/hw/misc/arm_integrator_debug.h |   18 ++++++
>  target-arm/cpu.h                       |    1 +
>  target-arm/helper.c                    |   33 ++++++++++-
>  target-arm/kvm.c                       |    8 ++-
>  12 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 hw/misc/arm_integrator_debug.c
>  create mode 100644 include/hw/misc/arm_integrator_debug.h
> 

[Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Peter Maydell]

The following changes since commit fc8ead74674b7129e8f31c2595c76658e5622197:

  Merge remote-tracking branch 'qemu-kvm/uq/master' into staging (2013-10-18 10:03:24 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:


  git://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/qemu-arm.git tags/pull-target-arm-20131025

for you to fetch changes up to 71c903cc3b78fc563122fe40c5cadd050068b91a:

  integrator: fix Linux boot failure by emulating dbg region (2013-10-25 18:27:07 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
target-arm queue: a couple of trivial features to improve support
for some guest emulation cases, notably running UEFI images:
 * support VBAR (vector base address register)
 * allow running without specifying a kernel (ie just running
   an image from flash)
Plus some bugfixes.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Bennée (1):
      integrator: fix Linux boot failure by emulating dbg region

Alvise Rigo (2):
      target-arm: sort TCG cpreg list by KVM-style 64 bit ID number
      target-arm: fix sorting issue of KVM cpreg list

Nathan Rossi (1):
      target-arm: Add CP15 VBAR support

Peter Maydell (2):
      hw/arm/boot: Make user not specifying a kernel not an error
      hw/arm: Tidy up conditional calls to arm_load_kernel

 default-configs/arm-softmmu.mak        |    1 +
 hw/arm/boot.c                          |    6 +-
 hw/arm/integratorcp.c                  |    2 +
 hw/arm/omap_sx1.c                      |   10 ++--
 hw/arm/palm.c                          |   10 ++--
 hw/arm/z2.c                            |   12 ++--
 hw/misc/Makefile.objs                  |    1 +
 hw/misc/arm_integrator_debug.c         |   99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/hw/misc/arm_integrator_debug.h |   18 ++++++
 target-arm/cpu.h                       |    1 +
 target-arm/helper.c                    |   33 ++++++++++-
 target-arm/kvm.c                       |    8 ++-
 12 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 hw/misc/arm_integrator_debug.c
 create mode 100644 include/hw/misc/arm_integrator_debug.h