Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] qemu-xen:Correctly expose PCH ISA bridge for IGD passthrough [and 2 more messages]

[Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:12:31AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.05.13 at 15:17, Pasi Kärkkäinen<pasik@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Jan: Can you please re-check 2/3 and 3/3 ? 
> > 
> > "[PATCH 2/3] qemu-xen-trad: Correctly expose PCH ISA bridge for IGD 
> > passthrough":
> > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-02/msg00536.html 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're asking for - my comments there weren't
> followed up with by the submitter, so I also don't have anything
> new to add. I don't think I've seen a cleaned up patch so far.
> 

Ok. Thanks for clarifying that (I wasn't sure if there was still unresolved 
issues or not).


> > "[PATCH 3/3] qemu-xen-trad: IGD passthrough: Expose vendor specific pci cap 
> > on 
> > host bridge":
> > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-02/msg00538.html 
> 
> Quite similar here, except that Jean was also asked to comment
> on why some previously existing code is the way it is, and I don't
> think any explanation was ever given.
>

Ok. 
 
> I can only second what Ian already said - pinging on a patch that
> has responses missing from the originator is bad practice. If you
> wanted to ping anyone, you'd have to ping those who failed to
> answer questions raised to them, not give the appearance of
> requesting a patch to be taken that is only half baked.
> 

I mostly wanted to clarify the situation with these patches,
I'm not suggesting to merge half baked patches. 

So thanks for the comments!

-- Pasi


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel