Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/10] hyperv: add connection infrastructure

[Roman Kagan]

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 21/09/2018 10:22, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > This series introduces the infrastructure to send and receive Hyper-V
> > messages and events.
> > 
> > More specifically,
> > 
> > - SynIC is turned into a full-fledged device managing the memory regions
> >   used for QEMU->guest communication
> > - machinery is introduced to post messages and signal events to the
> >   guest
> > - infrastructure is added to subscribe to messages and events from the
> >   guest, and to dispatch the received messages and events to the
> >   subscribers
> > 
> > Based-on: address@hidden
> > 
> > Roman Kagan (10):
> >   hyperv:synic: split capability testing and setting
> >   hyperv: qom-ify SynIC
> >   hyperv: only add SynIC in compatible configurations
> >   hyperv: make overlay pages for SynIC
> >   hyperv: add synic message delivery
> >   hyperv: add synic event flag signaling
> >   hyperv: process SIGNAL_EVENT hypercall
> >   hyperv: add support for KVM_HYPERV_EVENTFD
> >   hyperv: process POST_MESSAGE hypercall
> >   hyperv_testdev: add SynIC message and event testmodes
> > 
> >  include/hw/hyperv/hyperv-proto.h |   1 +
> >  include/hw/hyperv/hyperv.h       |  58 +++-
> >  include/hw/i386/pc.h             |   8 +
> >  target/i386/cpu.h                |   1 +
> >  target/i386/hyperv.h             |   4 +
> >  hw/hyperv/hyperv.c               | 542 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  hw/misc/hyperv_testdev.c         | 165 +++++++++-
> >  target/i386/cpu.c                |   2 +
> >  target/i386/hyperv-stub.c        |  13 +
> >  target/i386/hyperv.c             |  54 ++-
> >  target/i386/kvm.c                |  45 ++-
> >  target/i386/machine.c            |   9 +
> >  12 files changed, 872 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> I queued all three series, though if I were to post a pull request now
> I'd stop before "hyperv: add synic message delivery".

To make sure I interpret this correctly: do the remaining patches need
more work beside the things you've commented on?

Also do you want me to post the corrected stuff as incremental fixups or
as a full-fledged respin?  In the latter case should I assume your r-b
on all patches before that one?

Thanks,
Roman.