On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 21/09/2018 10:22, Roman Kagan wrote: > > This series introduces the infrastructure to send and receive Hyper-V > > messages and events. > > > > More specifically, > > > > - SynIC is turned into a full-fledged device managing the memory regions > > used for QEMU->guest communication > > - machinery is introduced to post messages and signal events to the > > guest > > - infrastructure is added to subscribe to messages and events from the > > guest, and to dispatch the received messages and events to the > > subscribers > > > > Based-on: 20180921082041.29380-1-rka...@virtuozzo.com > > > > Roman Kagan (10): > > hyperv:synic: split capability testing and setting > > hyperv: qom-ify SynIC > > hyperv: only add SynIC in compatible configurations > > hyperv: make overlay pages for SynIC > > hyperv: add synic message delivery > > hyperv: add synic event flag signaling > > hyperv: process SIGNAL_EVENT hypercall > > hyperv: add support for KVM_HYPERV_EVENTFD > > hyperv: process POST_MESSAGE hypercall > > hyperv_testdev: add SynIC message and event testmodes > > > > include/hw/hyperv/hyperv-proto.h | 1 + > > include/hw/hyperv/hyperv.h | 58 +++- > > include/hw/i386/pc.h | 8 + > > target/i386/cpu.h | 1 + > > target/i386/hyperv.h | 4 + > > hw/hyperv/hyperv.c | 542 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > hw/misc/hyperv_testdev.c | 165 +++++++++- > > target/i386/cpu.c | 2 + > > target/i386/hyperv-stub.c | 13 + > > target/i386/hyperv.c | 54 ++- > > target/i386/kvm.c | 45 ++- > > target/i386/machine.c | 9 + > > 12 files changed, 872 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > > > I queued all three series, though if I were to post a pull request now > I'd stop before "hyperv: add synic message delivery".
To make sure I interpret this correctly: do the remaining patches need more work beside the things you've commented on? Also do you want me to post the corrected stuff as incremental fixups or as a full-fledged respin? In the latter case should I assume your r-b on all patches before that one? Thanks, Roman.
