On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:04:13AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > 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",
It's a mode we don't need - adding it does not fix any bugs. > there is no need for > resizable MemoryRegions. > > Paolo There will be need - otherwise each change will keep adding modes. > >> 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
