From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mm5ft-0002zE-PK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:56:25 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mm5fo-0002wZ-Q2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:56:24 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52855 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mm5fo-0002wO-H9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:56:20 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f190.google.com ([209.85.210.190]:59282) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mm5fo-0007rf-5j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:56:20 -0400 Received: by yxe28 with SMTP id 28so1253836yxe.19 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AAA48EF.2010006@codemonkey.ws> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:56:15 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20090902074905.GB25711@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <20090909121817.GA21997@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <4AA7A6EC.10907@codemonkey.ws> <20090910070336.GD3351@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4AA90592.7080100@codemonkey.ws> <4AA90F7F.2030709@redhat.com> <4AAA1550.6090002@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <4AAA1550.6090002@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: commit e09a5267 List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Amit Shah , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity , Bernhard Kauer Jan Kiszka wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 09/10/2009 04:56 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> The problem is patch volume. We often see hundreds of patches a day. >>> If typing a mail for each patch takes 2 minutes, that's potentially >>> hours spent just on sending these mails. >>> >>> >> You exaggerate. The average rate is 13 patches per calendar day. The >> bulk of the patches are in patchsets which can be acked as a set, not >> once per patch. >> >> >>> What I really need is some way to automatically generate these >>> notifications. It's pretty easy to send a mail when a patch enters >>> the queue but it's more difficult to send a mail when a patch is >>> removed from the queue via a rebase. Often times, I remove patches >>> from the queue simply because I'm not the right path for the patches >>> to be committed from (like linux-user). >>> >> I think more per-patch attention is needed, not less, for example see >> this commit: >> >> commit e09a5267adf0af25b55d2abaf06e288b2d9537ea >> Author: Dustin Kirkland >> Date: Thu Sep 3 12:31:33 2009 -0500 >> >> qemu-kvm: fix segfault when running kvm without /dev/kvm, falling >> back to non-accelerated mode >> >> qemu-kvm: fix segfault when running kvm without /dev/kvm, falling back >> to non-accelerated mode >> >> We're seeing segfaults on systems without access to /dev/kvm. It >> looks like the global kvm_allowed is being set just a little too late >> in vl.c. This patch moves the kvm initialization a bit higher in the >> vl.c main, just after options processing, and solves the segfaults. >> We're carrying this patch in Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha. Please apply >> upstream, or advise if and why this might not be the optimal solution. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dustin Kirkland >> >> Move the kvm_init() call a bit higher to fix a segfault when >> /dev/kvm is not available. The kvm_allowed global needs >> to be set correctly a little earlier. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dustin Kirkland >> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori >> >> There are many examples like this in the tree which is a pity. Others >> include parts of an email conversation. I'd like history to look better >> than this. >> > > Even worse, I think this patch does not belong into upstream as it fixed > a qemu-kvm-only bug. I think this was caused by Dustin CC'ing qemu, right? > > Did anyone test properly if the change has no side effects on upstream > kvm (which has a different initialization scheme)? > It doesn't break upstream qemu's -enable-kvm. Regards, Anthony Liguori