Hi Peter,

On 08/02/2018 14:59, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 5 February 2018 at 10:26, Marcel Apfelbaum <mar...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> The following changes since commit f24ee107a07f093bd7ed475dd48d7ba57ea3d8fe:
>>
>>   Merge remote-tracking branch 
>> 'remotes/kraxel/tags/ui-20180202-pull-request' into staging (2018-02-02 
>> 18:54:11 +0000)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>>   https://github.com/marcel-apf/qemu tags/rdma-pull-request
>>
>> for you to fetch changes up to f172ba1b02724fb66dabd69cd553cfa625b413e5:
>>
>>   MAINTAINERS: add entry for hw/rdma (2018-02-05 11:53:00 +0200)
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> PVRDMA implementation
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Marcel Apfelbaum (3):
>>       mem: add share parameter to memory-backend-ram
>>       docs: add pvrdma device documentation.
>>       MAINTAINERS: add entry for hw/rdma
>>
>> Yuval Shaia (1):
>>       pvrdma: initial implementation
> 
> Hi. The technical details of this pullreq are all fine (pgp
> key, format, etc), and it passes my build tests. But I gave
> this pullreq a bit of a closer inspection than I normally
> would, since it's your first, and there are a few things I
> thought worth bringing up:

Thanks for doing it!

> 
> (1) I notice that some of the new files in this pullreq are licensed
> as "GPL, version 2", rather than "version 2 or any later version".
> Did you really mean that? Per 'LICENSE', we have a strong preference
> for 2-or-later for new code.
> 

No real preference, I will modify the license.

> (2) Some new files have no copyright or license comment at the
> top of them. Can you fix that, please?
> 

Sure.

> (3) Some of the new headers use kernel-internals __u32 etc types.
> This isn't portable. ('HACKING' has some suggestions for types you
> might want instead.)
> 

We do not "use" the __u32 types, we just copied a kernel file
for structures used for communication between the guest driver
and the QEMU code. We had a look on how it is done and
we use the model that adds macros __u32 -> uint32_t,
so the "__types" do not really create such problems.

> (4) One of your patches doesn't have any reviewed-by tags.
> We don't always manage to review everything, but it is
> nicer if we can get review, especially for patches from
> new submaintainers.
> 

The patch did receive several questions/comments and all
of them were addressed, but indeed no RB tag was given.
Since the patch was in the mailing list for over a month
and *was* reviewed, I thought is enough.
I will ping Eduardo, he had the latest comments for it.


> (5) This is an absolutely enormous diffstat for a single commit:
>  26 files changed, 5149 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 

On the github where the project was developed we have thousands of commits,
so it can't be used.
It was reviewed closely by one reviewer and got a lot
of comments from others.
That being said, we will try to split it in a few patches
and send a new version.

Thanks for the comments,
Marcel

> thanks
> -- PMM
> 


Reply via email to