On 20/11/2014 08:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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.
I don't think there's a need to add both patches. If mine goes in, and it can go in 2.2 since it is "just another mode", there is no need for resizable MemoryRegions. Paolo >> 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. >
