Re: [Qemu-devel] [For 4.1 PATCH v2 0/2] Reversions to fix PCIe in virtio

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:43:17PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 17:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > * Cornelia Huck (address@hidden) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:29:01 +0100
> > > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <address@hidden>
> > > >
> > > > Revert a couple of patches that break PCIe capabilities in virtio
> > > > devices. The 'optional' revert is just reverted to make the main
> > > > reversion trivial.
> > >
> > > Don't want to spoil the party here; but wasn't the optional stuff
> > > removed because it was deemed to be a bad idea?
> >
> > I'm perfectly happy to go either way with this; it maybe a bad idea
> > but it's harmless I think.
> 
> It seems like the original commits were:
>  * patch that does something
>  * patch that removes no-longer used functionality (optional globals)
> 
> so it makes sense to me that if we want to revert the 'patch that
> does something' we should first revert the patch that cleaned
> up unused-functionality (because now we need it again). Is
> that right?
> 
> If optional-globals are a bad idea then we should take another
> run at this for 4.2, but as a "revert stuff for 4.1" strategy
> it seems fine to me.

Functionally both approaches are supposed to be identical, but given
that we already found one last minute problem with the 2nd patch, the
full revert of both feels ever so slightly safer.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|