[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v19 0/2] virtio-crypto: virtio
From: |
Michael S. Tsirkin |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v19 0/2] virtio-crypto: virtio crypto device specification |
Date: |
Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:52:07 +0300 |
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:45:45PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>
> On 09/01/2017 02:47 AM, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
> > Ping...
> >
> > Stefan, Halil, do you have any suggestion ?
> >
>
> Hi Longpeng,
>
> I've ran trough your patch, and it reads much better that
> what I recall v18 used to read like. Because it's been a while
> since v18 doing a conscious review on this will take a considerable
> amount of time (my memories of the issues identified back then
> are very sketchy/vague now). It's on my todo list, but it ain't the
> only item there.
I don't think it's a fair reason to delay the merging though.
No comments in a while says time to merge to me.
There's always a public review period during which more comments
can be addressed.
So I think we should start a ballot on this one.
Mike - if you agree please open an issue in TC issue
tracker. As a reminder here are the guidelines:
--
When you open an issue (can be fixed afterwards as well):
1. Fill in the reporter in the Environment: field.
2. Shortly describe the issue in the description field
Preferably add a URL to discussion here or
in the comments.
If the mail was copied to virtio-comment or virtio-dev, you can use
mid.gmane.org/<message-id>
to quickly locate a mail in the archives.
2. Preferably, fill in all affected versions: in
"Affects Version/s:".
This might not apply to e.g. improvement requests.
---
When you propose the issue before the TC meeting:
1. Mark issue as Open
2. Fill in a summary of the final proposed change and
link to full proposal in "Proposal"
field.
[any historical abandoned proposals and extra info can go
into comments field]
---
Then mail me and the TC and I will start a ballot.
Thanks!
> Btw. I like to have a reference implementation at hand when reviewing
> a spec. What is the status of the (reference) implementation (I mean
> the new stuff like stateless/mux)? I think it would be nice to provide
> this info in the cover letter (e.g. next time, should we need another
> iteration).
>
> Regards,
> Halil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden