* Planning for the 0.11.0 release
@ 2009-06-22 23:57 Anthony Liguori
2009-06-23 12:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-06-22 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Hi,
It's getting to be about the time to start thinking about the 0.11.0
release. 0.10.0 was released on March 2nd so following with the 6 month
release cycle, that would put 0.11.0 at September 2nd.
Based on the experiences with the stable releases, here's what I'd
recommend:
o On July 15th, fork master -> stable-0.11
o Change version to 0.10.90
o Release qemu-0.11.0-rc1
o Release additional -rcN releases every 1-2 weeks
o Introduce a new maintainer for stable-0.10 (via git pulls)
o At least 1 week before release, hopefully we'll have the final -rcN
that we can then declare 0.11.0.
I think we should really try hard to make these dates. I only have a
few things that I would like to see happen before forking stable-0.11.
Namely:
o Setup qemu.org infrastructure (git hosting, wiki)
o Setup qemu bug tracker (see next mail)
o Include all ROM source code in tree via git submodules. This is a
major headache for distributors and I think it's important to resolve
before our next release.
o Disable kqemu by default. The intention is _not_ to remove kqemu
support. Enabling kqemu by default causes a few unpleasant side effects
including errors if -m is greater than 1/2 of the host physical memory.
I don't expect the qdev conversion will be complete by 0.11. I think we
should try to get as much of the invasive changes as possible in to make
stable-0.11 as maintainable as possible. However, I think it would be a
mistake to gate the release on qdev.
--
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-06-22 23:57 Planning for the 0.11.0 release Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-06-23 12:12 ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-23 15:09 ` Blue Swirl
2009-07-09 8:27 ` Mark McLoughlin
2 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Avi Kivity @ 2009-06-23 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm-devel
On 06/23/2009 02:57 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's getting to be about the time to start thinking about the 0.11.0
> release. 0.10.0 was released on March 2nd so following with the 6
> month release cycle, that would put 0.11.0 at September 2nd.
>
> Based on the experiences with the stable releases, here's what I'd
> recommend:
>
Seems sane to me.
> o Release qemu-0.11.0-rc1
> o Release additional -rcN releases every 1-2 weeks
I'll release qemu-kvm-0.11.0-rc* in parallel so we can get feedback from
kvm users as well.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-06-22 23:57 Planning for the 0.11.0 release Anthony Liguori
2009-06-23 12:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
@ 2009-06-23 15:09 ` Blue Swirl
2009-06-23 15:47 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-06-23 15:49 ` Avi Kivity
2009-07-09 8:27 ` Mark McLoughlin
2 siblings, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Blue Swirl @ 2009-06-23 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm-devel
On 6/23/09, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's getting to be about the time to start thinking about the 0.11.0
> release. 0.10.0 was released on March 2nd so following with the 6 month
> release cycle, that would put 0.11.0 at September 2nd.
>
> Based on the experiences with the stable releases, here's what I'd
> recommend:
>
> o On July 15th, fork master -> stable-0.11
> o Change version to 0.10.90
> o Release qemu-0.11.0-rc1
> o Release additional -rcN releases every 1-2 weeks
> o Introduce a new maintainer for stable-0.10 (via git pulls)
> o At least 1 week before release, hopefully we'll have the final -rcN that
> we can then declare 0.11.0.
Sounds OK. I think OpenBIOS releases should follow similar schedule,
maybe even with matching SVN tags (1.1-rc1 for 0.11.0-rc1 etc).
> I think we should really try hard to make these dates. I only have a few
> things that I would like to see happen before forking stable-0.11. Namely:
>
> o Setup qemu.org infrastructure (git hosting, wiki)
> o Setup qemu bug tracker (see next mail)
> o Include all ROM source code in tree via git submodules. This is a major
> headache for distributors and I think it's important to resolve before our
> next release.
I think this is great, but OpenBIOS still uses Subversion. Can git use
SVN submodules for example?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-06-23 15:09 ` Blue Swirl
@ 2009-06-23 15:47 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-06-23 15:49 ` Avi Kivity
1 sibling, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-06-23 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Blue Swirl; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 6/23/09, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's getting to be about the time to start thinking about the 0.11.0
>> release. 0.10.0 was released on March 2nd so following with the 6 month
>> release cycle, that would put 0.11.0 at September 2nd.
>>
>> Based on the experiences with the stable releases, here's what I'd
>> recommend:
>>
>> o On July 15th, fork master -> stable-0.11
>> o Change version to 0.10.90
>> o Release qemu-0.11.0-rc1
>> o Release additional -rcN releases every 1-2 weeks
>> o Introduce a new maintainer for stable-0.10 (via git pulls)
>> o At least 1 week before release, hopefully we'll have the final -rcN that
>> we can then declare 0.11.0.
>>
>
> Sounds OK. I think OpenBIOS releases should follow similar schedule,
> maybe even with matching SVN tags (1.1-rc1 for 0.11.0-rc1 etc).
>
>
>> I think we should really try hard to make these dates. I only have a few
>> things that I would like to see happen before forking stable-0.11. Namely:
>>
>> o Setup qemu.org infrastructure (git hosting, wiki)
>> o Setup qemu bug tracker (see next mail)
>> o Include all ROM source code in tree via git submodules. This is a major
>> headache for distributors and I think it's important to resolve before our
>> next release.
>>
>
> I think this is great, but OpenBIOS still uses Subversion. Can git use
> SVN submodules for example?
>
No, but it's not too hard to make svn->git bridges.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-06-23 15:09 ` Blue Swirl
2009-06-23 15:47 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-06-23 15:49 ` Avi Kivity
1 sibling, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Avi Kivity @ 2009-06-23 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Blue Swirl; +Cc: Anthony Liguori, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
On 06/23/2009 06:09 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> I think this is great, but OpenBIOS still uses Subversion. Can git use
> SVN submodules for example?
>
No, but we could have a git svn mirror and include that.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-06-22 23:57 Planning for the 0.11.0 release Anthony Liguori
2009-06-23 12:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2009-06-23 15:09 ` Blue Swirl
@ 2009-07-09 8:27 ` Mark McLoughlin
2009-07-09 13:32 ` Anthony Liguori
2 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Mark McLoughlin @ 2009-07-09 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Hi Anthony,
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:57 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's getting to be about the time to start thinking about the 0.11.0
> release. 0.10.0 was released on March 2nd so following with the 6 month
> release cycle, that would put 0.11.0 at September 2nd.
>
> Based on the experiences with the stable releases, here's what I'd
> recommend:
>
> o On July 15th, fork master -> stable-0.11
Are you still planning on creating the 0.11 branch next week?
Cheers,
Mark.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-09 8:27 ` Mark McLoughlin
@ 2009-07-09 13:32 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 1:10 ` Markus Armbruster
0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-09 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark McLoughlin; +Cc: Anthony Liguori, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi Anthony,
>
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:57 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's getting to be about the time to start thinking about the 0.11.0
>> release. 0.10.0 was released on March 2nd so following with the 6 month
>> release cycle, that would put 0.11.0 at September 2nd.
>>
>> Based on the experiences with the stable releases, here's what I'd
>> recommend:
>>
>> o On July 15th, fork master -> stable-0.11
>>
>
> Are you still planning on creating the 0.11 branch next week?
>
That's the plan although I need to make sure that all outstanding
patches have been given adequate review before hand. I want to give any
patch that has been posted so far a reasonable chance to make it into
0.11. If I can get through the backlog today, then we'll stay on
schedule. Either way, there will be plenty of warning on the ML and
opportunity for people to make suggestions.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-09 13:32 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-10 1:10 ` Markus Armbruster
2009-07-10 13:53 ` Anthony Liguori
0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Markus Armbruster @ 2009-07-10 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Mark McLoughlin, Anthony Liguori, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> Hi Anthony,
>>
>> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:57 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> It's getting to be about the time to start thinking about the
>>> 0.11.0 release. 0.10.0 was released on March 2nd so following with
>>> the 6 month release cycle, that would put 0.11.0 at September 2nd.
>>>
>>> Based on the experiences with the stable releases, here's what I'd
>>> recommend:
>>>
>>> o On July 15th, fork master -> stable-0.11
>>>
>>
>> Are you still planning on creating the 0.11 branch next week?
>>
>
> That's the plan although I need to make sure that all outstanding
> patches have been given adequate review before hand. I want to give
> any patch that has been posted so far a reasonable chance to make it
> into 0.11. If I can get through the backlog today, then we'll stay on
> schedule. Either way, there will be plenty of warning on the ML and
> opportunity for people to make suggestions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
Any hope that -device can make the cut?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 1:10 ` Markus Armbruster
@ 2009-07-10 13:53 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 15:04 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Armbruster; +Cc: Mark McLoughlin, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes:
>
> Any hope that -device can make the cut?
>
I've got most of the outstanding patches in staging now. The only thing
missing is the PIIX refactoring from Isaku which I suspect is going to
fuzz badly. -device is there.
I'll be testing this today and I'll try to push it tomorrow.
I'm going to delay the 0.10.6 release to coincide with 0.11.0-rc1. I
think we're on track for 0.11.0-rc1 for next Wednesday.
Taking a look over staging would be helpful for anyone interested.
--
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 13:53 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-10 15:04 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 15:49 ` Anthony Liguori
0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2009-07-10 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Markus Armbruster, Mark McLoughlin, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes:
>>
>> Any hope that -device can make the cut?
>>
> I've got most of the outstanding patches in staging now. The only thing
> missing is the PIIX refactoring from Isaku which I suspect is going to
> fuzz badly. -device is there.
>
> I'll be testing this today and I'll try to push it tomorrow.
>
> I'm going to delay the 0.10.6 release to coincide with 0.11.0-rc1. I
> think we're on track for 0.11.0-rc1 for next Wednesday.
>
> Taking a look over staging would be helpful for anyone interested.
Hmm, I must have missed this: Where is your staging tree hosted?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 15:04 ` Jan Kiszka
@ 2009-07-10 15:49 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 16:23 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 16:55 ` Kevin Wolf
0 siblings, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka; +Cc: Markus Armbruster, Mark McLoughlin, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hmm, I must have missed this: Where is your staging tree hosted?
>
Right now it's at http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/aliguori-queue.git but I plan
to move it to git.qemu.org in the next few days.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 15:49 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-10 16:23 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 16:33 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 16:55 ` Kevin Wolf
1 sibling, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2009-07-10 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Markus Armbruster, Mark McLoughlin, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hmm, I must have missed this: Where is your staging tree hosted?
>>
>
> Right now it's at http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/aliguori-queue.git but I plan
> to move it to git.qemu.org in the next few days.
Ah, thanks.
OK, then I would like to know the status of my -boot patch queue [1] and
at least of patch 1..3 of my gdbstub queue [2] (though I'm still waiting
for the factual proof that patch 4 is unneeded - my last arguments
remained unanswered).
Jan
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/46703
[2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/46314
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 16:23 ` Jan Kiszka
@ 2009-07-10 16:33 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 16:52 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka
Cc: Markus Armbruster, Mark McLoughlin, qemu-devel, kvm-devel, Paul Brook
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Ah, thanks.
>
> OK, then I would like to know the status of my -boot patch queue [1]
I'm stilling waiting for 1/7 and 2/7. Via the link you posted and in my
inbox, I still don't see those. I do see a 1/2 and a 2/2 but those are
bios patches. Did you have a numbering issue or did some patches get
lost in the ether?
> and
> at least of patch 1..3 of my gdbstub queue [2] (though I'm still waiting
> for the factual proof that patch 4 is unneeded - my last arguments
> remained unanswered).
>
Paul expressed objection in the past to the debugging model of treating
vcpus as threads vs. treating them as processes. I'm not qualified to
appreciate the difference so I'm inclined to side with Paul. Am I
missing something there?
--
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 16:33 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-10 16:52 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 17:03 ` Anthony Liguori
0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2009-07-10 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori
Cc: Markus Armbruster, Mark McLoughlin, qemu-devel, kvm-devel, Paul Brook
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Ah, thanks.
>>
>> OK, then I would like to know the status of my -boot patch queue [1]
>
> I'm stilling waiting for 1/7 and 2/7. Via the link you posted and in my
> inbox, I still don't see those. I do see a 1/2 and a 2/2 but those are
> bios patches. Did you have a numbering issue or did some patches get
> lost in the ether?
Something went wrong during transmission, and I missed that. Just sent
out those two as well.
>
>> and
>> at least of patch 1..3 of my gdbstub queue [2] (though I'm still waiting
>> for the factual proof that patch 4 is unneeded - my last arguments
>> remained unanswered).
>>
>
> Paul expressed objection in the past to the debugging model of treating
> vcpus as threads vs. treating them as processes.
That's nothing those patches changes (it's our current and only
debugging model for SMP until gdb provides a complete solution).
The recent discussion went around how to deal with some other gdb
limitation: debugging targets that run in x86's 16/32 bit mode vs. the
target arch being advertised as 64 bit. Existing qemu code doesn't work
with existing gdb in this scenario, and the question was how to deal
with it until gdb is improved.
> I'm not qualified to
> appreciate the difference so I'm inclined to side with Paul. Am I
> missing something there?
I interpreted [1] as that the rest is OK for Paul.
Jan
[1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/46399
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 15:49 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 16:23 ` Jan Kiszka
@ 2009-07-10 16:55 ` Kevin Wolf
2009-07-10 16:59 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:06 ` Anthony Liguori
1 sibling, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Wolf @ 2009-07-10 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Anthony Liguori schrieb:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hmm, I must have missed this: Where is your staging tree hosted?
>>
>
> Right now it's at http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/aliguori-queue.git but I plan
> to move it to git.qemu.org in the next few days.
If I'm not mistaken, the patch "qemu-io: Implement
bdrv_get_buffer/bdrv_put_buffer" is missing from the queue.
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 16:55 ` Kevin Wolf
@ 2009-07-10 16:59 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:10 ` Kevin Wolf
2009-07-10 17:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-10 17:06 ` Anthony Liguori
1 sibling, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Wolf; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm-devel, Christoph Hellwig
Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Anthony Liguori schrieb:
>
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, I must have missed this: Where is your staging tree hosted?
>>>
>>>
>> Right now it's at http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/aliguori-queue.git but I plan
>> to move it to git.qemu.org in the next few days.
>>
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the patch "qemu-io: Implement
> bdrv_get_buffer/bdrv_put_buffer" is missing from the queue.
>
I just did a pull a few hours ago from Christoph's qemu-io tree. I'm
expecting qemu-io patches to go through his tree.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 16:52 ` Jan Kiszka
@ 2009-07-10 17:03 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:15 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 17:40 ` Paul Brook
0 siblings, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka
Cc: Markus Armbruster, Mark McLoughlin, qemu-devel, kvm-devel, Paul Brook
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Something went wrong during transmission, and I missed that. Just sent
> out those two as well.
>
Thanks, it's now all in staging.
> That's nothing those patches changes (it's our current and only
> debugging model for SMP until gdb provides a complete solution).
>
It Paul agrees, I'll pull it. But my understanding from the previous
threads and posts was that Paul did not want to implement vCont even as
a stop-gap and that he preferred to fix gdb properly.
> The recent discussion went around how to deal with some other gdb
> limitation: debugging targets that run in x86's 16/32 bit mode vs. the
> target arch being advertised as 64 bit. Existing qemu code doesn't work
> with existing gdb in this scenario, and the question was how to deal
> with it until gdb is improved.
>
Right, that part I'm okay with. But the vCont based gdb model presumes
a unified address space which while usually true for kernel address
spaces, isn't universally true and certainly not true when PC is in
userspace. That's what I understood to be the major objection to vCont.
>> I'm not qualified to
>> appreciate the difference so I'm inclined to side with Paul. Am I
>> missing something there?
>>
>
> I interpreted [1] as that the rest is OK for Paul.
>
Paul, can you clarify?
--
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 16:55 ` Kevin Wolf
2009-07-10 16:59 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-10 17:06 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-12 8:31 ` Avi Kivity
1 sibling, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Wolf; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Anthony Liguori schrieb:
>
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, I must have missed this: Where is your staging tree hosted?
>>>
>>>
>> Right now it's at http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/aliguori-queue.git but I plan
>> to move it to git.qemu.org in the next few days.
>>
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the patch "qemu-io: Implement
> bdrv_get_buffer/bdrv_put_buffer" is missing from the queue.
>
BTW, this is one of the challenges of doing pulls. I did the pull and
then deleted every qemu-io patch in my queue since I assumed that
everything that should go in was part of hch's pull request. In
general, that's the only sane way to do pulls so if someone requests a
pull in the future, please make sure that you've gone through and pulled
any patch from the list first.
--
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 16:59 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-10 17:10 ` Kevin Wolf
2009-07-10 17:31 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
1 sibling, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Wolf @ 2009-07-10 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm-devel, Christoph Hellwig
Anthony Liguori schrieb:
> Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori schrieb:
>>
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmm, I must have missed this: Where is your staging tree hosted?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Right now it's at http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/aliguori-queue.git but I plan
>>> to move it to git.qemu.org in the next few days.
>>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, the patch "qemu-io: Implement
>> bdrv_get_buffer/bdrv_put_buffer" is missing from the queue.
>>
>
> I just did a pull a few hours ago from Christoph's qemu-io tree. I'm
> expecting qemu-io patches to go through his tree.
Last time you said you don't want to get pull requests but rather
patches on the list.
Christoph, would you be so kind to push the patch to your queue and fill
the pull request form for Anthony in three copies, signed and with
official stamp...?
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 16:59 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:10 ` Kevin Wolf
@ 2009-07-10 17:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-10 17:12 ` Kevin Wolf
2009-07-10 17:29 ` Anthony Liguori
1 sibling, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2009-07-10 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Kevin Wolf, qemu-devel, kvm-devel, Christoph Hellwig
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:59:25AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >If I'm not mistaken, the patch "qemu-io: Implement
> >bdrv_get_buffer/bdrv_put_buffer" is missing from the queue.
> >
>
> I just did a pull a few hours ago from Christoph's qemu-io tree. I'm
> expecting qemu-io patches to go through his tree.
I hold that patch back for now as it will need a bit of work if
the ->bdrv_{get,put}_buffer renaming patch goes in. Just looking at
the queue Anthony only has queued up the older non-renaming version.
Anthony was this an accident or do you dislike the renaming?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2009-07-10 17:12 ` Kevin Wolf
2009-07-10 18:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-10 17:29 ` Anthony Liguori
1 sibling, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Wolf @ 2009-07-10 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: Anthony Liguori, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Christoph Hellwig schrieb:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:59:25AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> If I'm not mistaken, the patch "qemu-io: Implement
>>> bdrv_get_buffer/bdrv_put_buffer" is missing from the queue.
>>>
>> I just did a pull a few hours ago from Christoph's qemu-io tree. I'm
>> expecting qemu-io patches to go through his tree.
>
> I hold that patch back for now as it will need a bit of work if
> the ->bdrv_{get,put}_buffer renaming patch goes in.
Ok, that makes sense. Will you take care of it once the renaming patch
is in or should I resend it then?
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:03 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-10 17:15 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 17:40 ` Paul Brook
1 sibling, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2009-07-10 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori
Cc: Markus Armbruster, Mark McLoughlin, qemu-devel, kvm-devel, Paul Brook
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> That's nothing those patches changes (it's our current and only
>> debugging model for SMP until gdb provides a complete solution).
>>
>
> It Paul agrees, I'll pull it. But my understanding from the previous
> threads and posts was that Paul did not want to implement vCont even as
> a stop-gap and that he preferred to fix gdb properly.
We also need vCont for proper thread debugging in user mode emulation.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-10 17:12 ` Kevin Wolf
@ 2009-07-10 17:29 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 18:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
1 sibling, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: Kevin Wolf, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:59:25AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>>> If I'm not mistaken, the patch "qemu-io: Implement
>>> bdrv_get_buffer/bdrv_put_buffer" is missing from the queue.
>>>
>>>
>> I just did a pull a few hours ago from Christoph's qemu-io tree. I'm
>> expecting qemu-io patches to go through his tree.
>>
>
> I hold that patch back for now as it will need a bit of work if
> the ->bdrv_{get,put}_buffer renaming patch goes in. Just looking at
> the queue Anthony only has queued up the older non-renaming version.
>
Sorry, I'm not able to follow you here. What is currently queued and
what do you think should be queued? Can you provide links/commit hashes?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:10 ` Kevin Wolf
@ 2009-07-10 17:31 ` Anthony Liguori
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Wolf; +Cc: qemu-devel, kvm-devel, Christoph Hellwig
Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Last time you said you don't want to get pull requests but rather
> patches on the list.
>
I'm clearly trying to purposefully confuse you :-)
Honestly, I'm just trying to work with people. I saw the pull request,
so I pulled it. I would have been just as happy pulling in the patches
from the mailing list.
> Christoph, would you be so kind to push the patch to your queue and fill
> the pull request form for Anthony in three copies, signed and with
> official stamp...?
>
Don't forget to get it notarized after committee approval.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> Kevin
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:03 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:15 ` Jan Kiszka
@ 2009-07-10 17:40 ` Paul Brook
2009-07-10 17:58 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 18:02 ` Jan Kiszka
1 sibling, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Paul Brook @ 2009-07-10 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: qemu-devel
Cc: Anthony Liguori, Jan Kiszka, Mark McLoughlin, Markus Armbruster,
kvm-devel
> Right, that part I'm okay with. But the vCont based gdb model presumes
> a unified address space which while usually true for kernel address
> spaces, isn't universally true and certainly not true when PC is in
> userspace. That's what I understood to be the major objection to vCont.
The thread bits are the wrong way to do things, but are probably relatively
harmless for now. Expect me to remove them at the first available opportunity.
The 32/64-bit switching is just plain wrong, and makes it absolutely
impossible for a client debugger to work correctly.
If you really can't be bothered fixing gdb (and you *really* should), then it
should be some form of user switch that tells qemu to always report a 32-bit
register set.
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:40 ` Paul Brook
@ 2009-07-10 17:58 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 18:02 ` Jan Kiszka
1 sibling, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Brook
Cc: qemu-devel, Jan Kiszka, Mark McLoughlin, Markus Armbruster, kvm-devel
Paul Brook wrote:
>> Right, that part I'm okay with. But the vCont based gdb model presumes
>> a unified address space which while usually true for kernel address
>> spaces, isn't universally true and certainly not true when PC is in
>> userspace. That's what I understood to be the major objection to vCont.
>>
>
> The thread bits are the wrong way to do things, but are probably relatively
> harmless for now. Expect me to remove them at the first available opportunity.
>
I'll queue 1-3 then and we'll leave 4 for post-0.11 debate.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:40 ` Paul Brook
2009-07-10 17:58 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-10 18:02 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 18:22 ` Paul Brook
1 sibling, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2009-07-10 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Brook
Cc: qemu-devel, Anthony Liguori, Mark McLoughlin, Markus Armbruster,
kvm-devel
Paul Brook wrote:
> The 32/64-bit switching is just plain wrong, and makes it absolutely
> impossible for a client debugger to work correctly.
As pointed out before, it doesn't break anything but adds a workaround
for scenarios which are _now_ broken (16/32 bit target code exported as
64 bit is widely useless for gdb today). Sorry, but you never explained
to me how user are _currently_ supposed to debug under that conditions,
namely 16/32 bit code executed by qemu-system-x86_64.
> If you really can't be bothered fixing gdb (and you *really* should), then it
I do bother, but it's nothing for a long rainy afternoon.
> should be some form of user switch that tells qemu to always report a 32-bit
> register set.
I could offer to add a monitor command so that one can additionally
set/override the register representation during runtime that way. I do
not see a use case for it based on all the scenarios I'm aware of or
personally ran through the last year, but if it helps acceptance.
However, only a command line switch locking down the mode would solve
just half of the real-world problems.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:29 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-10 18:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-10 18:29 ` Anthony Liguori
0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2009-07-10 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Kevin Wolf, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:29:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Sorry, I'm not able to follow you here. What is currently queued and
> what do you think should be queued? Can you provide links/commit hashes?
Currenly queued:
http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/aliguori-queue.git?a=commitdiff;h=9ecf9f92d22f28eccf8a7682b18f01cf1c9f04ba
Updated version:
http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=124706191805387&w=2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 18:02 ` Jan Kiszka
@ 2009-07-10 18:22 ` Paul Brook
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Paul Brook @ 2009-07-10 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: qemu-devel
Cc: Jan Kiszka, Mark McLoughlin, Anthony Liguori, kvm-devel,
Markus Armbruster
> As pointed out before, it doesn't break anything but adds a workaround
> for scenarios which are _now_ broken (16/32 bit target code exported as
> 64 bit is widely useless for gdb today). Sorry, but you never explained
> to me how user are _currently_ supposed to debug under that conditions,
> namely 16/32 bit code executed by qemu-system-x86_64.
You're working around a gdb bug it in a way that means a fixed gdb can't
possibly work. IMO the cure is worse than the disease. Changing the register
set reported to gdb part way through a session will always break. There's no
possible way for gdb to what state the target is going to be in until it
actually queries it.
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:12 ` Kevin Wolf
@ 2009-07-10 18:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2009-07-10 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Wolf; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 07:12:37PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Ok, that makes sense. Will you take care of it once the renaming patch
> is in or should I resend it then?
If Anthony prefers patches I'll stop doing the git trees and you'll
have to repost it. If we continue with the git trees I can adapt it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 18:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2009-07-10 18:29 ` Anthony Liguori
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2009-07-10 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: Kevin Wolf, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:29:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I'm not able to follow you here. What is currently queued and
>> what do you think should be queued? Can you provide links/commit hashes?
>>
>
> Currenly queued:
>
> http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/aliguori-queue.git?a=commitdiff;h=9ecf9f92d22f28eccf8a7682b18f01cf1c9f04ba
>
> Updated version:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=124706191805387&w=2
>
No Signed-off-by, not a top-level patch. I removed the old one from the
queue though and will add your new one once you resend.
No Signed-off-by is the killer though. I cannot take a patch that
doesn't have a Signed-off-by.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
2009-07-10 17:06 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2009-07-12 8:31 ` Avi Kivity
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Avi Kivity @ 2009-07-12 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Kevin Wolf, qemu-devel, kvm-devel
On 07/10/2009 08:06 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> BTW, this is one of the challenges of doing pulls. I did the pull and
> then deleted every qemu-io patch in my queue since I assumed that
> everything that should go in was part of hch's pull request. In
> general, that's the only sane way to do pulls so if someone requests a
> pull in the future, please make sure that you've gone through and
> pulled any patch from the list first.
Pulls and stale queues are incompatible. So long as everything is in
patches, it doesn't matter since duplicate patches won't apply. However
a branch can't be based on a queue (since that's liable to change any
time), and the branch can't commit and patches in the queue (since the
queue might be committed any time). If you want to pull, you'll need to
shorten your queues (that will improve many other people's quality of
life, btw).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-07-12 8:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-06-22 23:57 Planning for the 0.11.0 release Anthony Liguori
2009-06-23 12:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2009-06-23 15:09 ` Blue Swirl
2009-06-23 15:47 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-06-23 15:49 ` Avi Kivity
2009-07-09 8:27 ` Mark McLoughlin
2009-07-09 13:32 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 1:10 ` Markus Armbruster
2009-07-10 13:53 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 15:04 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 15:49 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 16:23 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 16:33 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 16:52 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 17:03 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:15 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 17:40 ` Paul Brook
2009-07-10 17:58 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 18:02 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-07-10 18:22 ` Paul Brook
2009-07-10 16:55 ` Kevin Wolf
2009-07-10 16:59 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:10 ` Kevin Wolf
2009-07-10 17:31 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-10 17:12 ` Kevin Wolf
2009-07-10 18:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-10 17:29 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 18:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-10 18:29 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-10 17:06 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-07-12 8:31 ` Avi Kivity
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).