From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE98C433F5 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:07:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D810B61039 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:07:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org D810B61039 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:43946 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfoGJ-0001KN-QQ for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:06:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53136) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfnOp-0007Jf-U2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:11:43 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:52163) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfnOm-0005GZ-CW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:11:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1635358299; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=B7UVc2EIVESYguL/38yveeQc2aVFr/bfxolagqC78ac=; b=Yz0QP7OCrJUjnJ1Ygn5qg6gL1oES+7Kv4F7IDyqoWcRw5s1500ceCztkcaTD6RKeqEi1rD dQM2+n3Njj9oc2bWU1kW+I8XR3wWbIGdMHpDmkvteMKU+4M3UtplPFxcob/9DyM0b2dP3C Mt+ayKrPWokudMaccuCfCS790V6X7RY= Received: from mail-wr1-f69.google.com (mail-wr1-f69.google.com [209.85.221.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-274-EjY7KNqVOM25WaMLyFh4mw-1; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:11:36 -0400 X-MC-Unique: EjY7KNqVOM25WaMLyFh4mw-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f69.google.com with SMTP id f2-20020a5d50c2000000b00167f5c0a206so979692wrt.12 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 11:11:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=B7UVc2EIVESYguL/38yveeQc2aVFr/bfxolagqC78ac=; b=erEFSqDdofXOUhluObIe39BNGVNqlevvvw5oHI3HW2CtmaVG4r2Kp/AdB9U7FVLfKM 1ZoVgHq3hBA2S+x0a5kca4ZxjB3soLCE9LTUke9X0rTh0tB4E6lAboK7ytXcMUMFmR4H Zuu4Z06cZd1F3jNuEbZ7Qajgl3BPbN2DHK9cEuV/DA0YwLnjH4Y5NjZCZs0ea9GunZ51 GV5PER3fswnLA/KhyBi0fR1XJ+gQAg2vXH35vxMKhicRYDk0xMmIhkbhml60NflM4CXE HgVWzAjZkKEApoQ6uKIUiIPesmZKWXfUg8Dgbx9hDIGQR8ur9U7nbc/kYu+DC5RshsPm 30Xw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zq/sykmwPWnUSdHnLeVSZduf5pzIYh4+6Rb0RKUcpRLq4YcEg c/H2PblGBR1PGqQEUL3vORppCUtFmjp7P4m5HXPZiF5hP6Q0oAIbbj8yqKdx5UVsy6vn++b/aqH Tomb8vHtQZXJJ6eY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2199:: with SMTP id e25mr7330678wme.157.1635358294792; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 11:11:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzGlPD6lPA6d3yevsLKthQTmVhsu2srbLHhzZntR7XhbiQsuh0h/a82a7X1vkdPZ+lNL3djew== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2199:: with SMTP id e25mr7330660wme.157.1635358294590; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 11:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.36] (62.red-83-57-168.dynamicip.rima-tde.net. [83.57.168.62]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s13sm4254596wmc.47.2021.10.27.11.11.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Oct 2021 11:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <89f91648-1263-32d3-953b-84bcc147135b@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:11:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PULL 0/8] 9p queue 2021-10-27 To: Christian Schoenebeck , Richard Henderson References: <2647527.eb0YlLX8Cn@silver> <36b93ef0-bcff-1be6-ce8d-03cd61f0a0fd@redhat.com> <13405882.ftTnZbQXCH@silver> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= In-Reply-To: <13405882.ftTnZbQXCH@silver> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=philmd@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=philmd@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -55 X-Spam_score: -5.6 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-2.847, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Greg Kurz Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Hi Richard, On 10/27/21 19:29, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > On Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021 18:48:10 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 10/27/21 18:21, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: >>> On Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021 17:36:03 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> On 10/27/21 16:05, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: >>>>> Regarding last 5 patches: Daniel raised a concern that not using >>>>> g_autoptr >>>>> would deviate from current QEMU coding patterns: >>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-10/msg00081.html >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately I saw no way to address his concern without adding >>>>> unnecessary code complexity, so I decided to make this a 9p local type >>>>> (QArray -> P9Array) for now, which can easily be replaced in future >>>>> (e.g. >>>>> when there will be something appropriate on glib side). >>>> >>>> Hmm various patches aren't reviewed yet... In particular >>>> patch #5 has a Suggested-by tag without Reviewed-by, this >>>> looks odd. >>>> >>>> See https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest: >>>> Don't send pull requests for code that hasn't passed review. >>>> A pull request says these patches are ready to go into QEMU now, >>>> so they must have passed the standard code review processes. In >>>> particular if you've corrected issues in one round of code review, >>>> you need to send your fixed patch series as normal to the list; >>>> you can't put it in a pull request until it's gone through. >>>> (Extremely trivial fixes may be OK to just fix in passing, but >>>> if in doubt err on the side of not.) >>> >>> There are in general exactly two persons adding their RBs to 9p patches, >>> which is either Greg or me, and Greg made it already clear that he barely >>> has time for anything above trivial set. >>> >>> So what do you suggest? You want to participate and review 9p patches? >> >> Well I am a bit surprised... >> >> $ git log --oneline \ >> --grep='Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé' -- hw/9pfs/ | wc -l >> 18 >> >> I also reviewed patch #3 if this pull request... >> >> >> Now I see you posted this 4 times in 2 months, so indeed eventual >> reviewers had plenty of time to look at your patches. >> >> Note I haven't said I'd NAck your pull request, I noticed your own >> concern wrt Daniel comment, so I looked at the patch and realized >> it was not reviewed, and simply said this is this is odd. >> >> Regards, >> >> Phil. > > Philippe, of course I understand why this looks odd to you, and yes you > reviewed that particular patch. But the situation on the 9p front is like this > for >2 years now: people quickly come by to nack patches, but even after > having addressed their concerns they barely add their RBs afterwards. That > means I am currently forced to send out PRs without RBs once in a while. > > The mentioned 5 patches look like overkill on first sight, but they are just > intended as preparatory ones. I actually should fix a protocol implementation > deficit in "Twalk" request handling, and that in turn means I will have to add > complexity to function v9fs_walk(). But before even daring to do so, I should > get rid of as much of complexity as possible. Because we already had a bunch > of issues in that function before. I believe these are trivial 5 patches. But > I can also accompany them with test cases if somebody is worried. > > Greg, I could also drop them now, but the general issue will retain: Reality > is that I am the only person working on 9p right now and a fact that I cannot > change. The rest is for other people to decide. To be explicit, I just asked clarifications to Christian. I understand the 9pfs subsystem situation, and I am not against (Nacking) this pull request being merged. Thanks both, Phil.