[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-4.0?] arm: Allow system registers
Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-4.0?] arm: Allow system registers for KVM guests to be changed by QEMU code
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:36:56 +0800
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
On 2019/3/18 20:49, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 12:34, gengdongjiu <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 2019/3/16 4:11, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
>>>> Should we try to put this in for rc1? Not sure... Testing
>>>> definitely appreciated.
>>> You might include it for rc1 and we still have rc2/rc3 to revert it.
>> why we still have rc2/rc3 to revert it?
> I think Philippe's point is that it's reasonably safe to
> apply this patch in rc1 (ie now), because if we do do that
> and then discover that we have some other bug in it, we
> still have plenty of time to take the patch out again
> before release.
> (If we did discover another bug in this patch in future, I
> would favour reverting it for the 4.0 release rather than
> trying to fix whatever that bug was, because two unexpected
> bugs in the patch means I clearly didn't understand
> the code well enough to produce a reliable patch. The cases
> that this patch fixes are pretty rare -- it does fix a bug
> but only in handling of some cases of debugging a KVM guest;
> but the patch potentially affects the behaviour of any
> KVM guest, even if the user isn't trying to debug. So it's
> riskier than some other kinds of change, and on balance
> that means that when we're making a decision at rc2 or rc3
> I'm more in favour of just reverting it rather than
> applying what we hope is a fix.)
Got it, understand it now, thanks very much for Peter's detailed explanation.
> -- PMM