On Wednesday, 3 May 2017 at 4:34 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:30:31AM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:hi all,Thanks for helping reviewing for CAT support in the past days.I writing this email to ask for the plan in libvirt support.I think we’v discussed this early this year, and I’v proposed a patch set [1].But don’t get merged because of some performance reason ?Then I proposed a redesign RFC[2] based on Martin’s cache branch,thans Martin for the reviewing, I can address them but the question hereis it depends on Martin’s `cache` branch, which if for exposing host’s `cache`information in capabilities xml, and it doesn’t get merged ether, I feel helpless.Martin posted review comments on your latest patches just a couple of daysago, and you've not posted any newer version of the patches since thenthat address those comments.
Yes, I see that and response, I will refine my RFC patch.
I just worry about the dependencies. It’s long time and don’t get reviewed after the last post.
And Martin’s `cache` branch was not merged yet, that’s not under my control, this
is my concern.
As CAT is a key feature which would be required by many customers andespecially the OpenStack integration.Regardless of what/who needs a feature, we're not going to rush tomerge patches if there are still outstanding issues that need fixing.
Agree.
I would like to get some advice on which direction should go, with the new implementation,
the dependency is a problem.
Would like to know the plan and get the some suggestions.Carry on addressing the feedback provided & posting new versions of thepatches for review.
Sure, I will continue working on that.
BR,
Eli Qiao
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
