From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752706Ab3HOXZ1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2013 19:25:27 -0400 Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:60892 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752047Ab3HOXZ0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2013 19:25:26 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 108.223.40.66 Message-ID: <520D6363.1010801@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:25:23 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 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+ References: <5207B3C3.9080508@roeck-us.net> <20130811220450.GY23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/15/2013 03:23 PM, 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... > Ok if Russel accepts it ... Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52385) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VA6v6-0004kL-S4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 19:25:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VA6v0-0008Hn-Fo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 19:25:32 -0400 Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:51806) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VA6v0-0008He-4p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 19:25:26 -0400 Message-ID: <520D6363.1010801@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:25:23 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5207B3C3.9080508@roeck-us.net> <20130811220450.GY23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 08/15/2013 03:23 PM, 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... > Ok if Russel accepts it ... Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:25:23 -0700 Subject: [Qemu-devel] SCSI bus failures with qemu-arm in kernel 3.8+ In-Reply-To: References: <5207B3C3.9080508@roeck-us.net> <20130811220450.GY23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <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: <520D6363.1010801@roeck-us.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/15/2013 03:23 PM, 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... > Ok if Russel accepts it ... Guenter