| Message ID | 20180219141259.26526-1-danielhb@linux.vnet.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | qmp: 'wakeup-suspend-support' in query-target | expand |
Ping On 02/19/2018 11:12 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > v5: > - removed a paragraph in the recently added qemu_register_wakeup_notifier > comment that was added. That paragraph was adding too much in-depth > information about the current design of the system_wakeup, making it > harder to understand the whole point (suggested by Mike Roth). > - previous version link: > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-01/msg00879.html > > v4: > - added a comment in 'qemu_register_wakeup_notifier' about the effects > of adding a wakeup notifier without proper suspend/wakeup support in the > logic of the new wakeup-suspend-support flag, as suggested by Mike Roth > - previous version link: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-01/msg00358.html > > v3: > - added a "(since 2.12)" notation in the new flag, as suggested by > Eric Blake > - added a "backwards compatible" note in the commit msg > - previous version link: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-01/msg00093.html > > v2: > - changed the approach based on v1 discussions: instead of a new API, add > the required flag in QMP query-target > - dropped patch 2 since query-target does not have an HMP counterpart > - previous version link: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-12/msg00889.html > > > Daniel Henrique Barboza (2): > qmp: adding 'wakeup-suspend-support' in query-target > qga: update guest-suspend-ram and guest-suspend-hybrid descriptions > > arch_init.c | 1 + > include/sysemu/sysemu.h | 1 + > qapi-schema.json | 4 +++- > qga/qapi-schema.json | 14 ++++++++++---- > vl.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 5 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >
Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Ping
Michael, you reviewed v4 (at least in part), can you have a look?
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes: > Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > >> Ping > > Michael, you reviewed v4 (at least in part), can you have a look? Have these patches fallen through the cracks?
On 05/14/2018 05:46 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes: > >> Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> >>> Ping >> Michael, you reviewed v4 (at least in part), can you have a look? > Have these patches fallen through the cracks? > Should I re-send it? Not sure if this is applicable in the current code base anymore. Daniel
Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb@linux.ibm.com> writes: > On 05/14/2018 05:46 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >>> >>>> Ping >>> Michael, you reviewed v4 (at least in part), can you have a look? >> Have these patches fallen through the cracks? >> > Should I re-send it? Not sure if this is applicable in the current > code base anymore. git-am isn't happy on current master. The conflicts look simple enough for a maintainer to resolve, but that's yet another hurdle. Best to respin, I think (assuming you still want the patches to go in).
On 05/15/2018 02:29 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > git-am isn't happy on current master. The conflicts look simple enough > for a maintainer to resolve, but that's yet another hurdle. Best to > respin, I think (assuming you still want the patches to go in). Just respinned it to v6. Let's see how that goes. Daniel