On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:11:05AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 20/11/2014 07:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > I thought we agreed we'll consider alternate approaches after 2.2? > > I would prefer not to have yet another mode to support > > if we can help it. > > I agree, but: > > 1) looks like there is stronger opposition to your patch than I thought, > so a 2.2 solution as in this patch becomes more palatable
Why the urgency? It's not fixing any regressions, is it? I would rather not add yet another mode for 2.2, we'll likely have a new mode in 2.3 but I'd like that to be the last one. > 2) reviewing patches is always nice, and helps evaluating the advantages > of either approach > > Paolo I'll do my best, sorry about the delay - I'm trying to prioritize 2.2 work at the moment. -- MST
