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 here is 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 days ago, and you've not posted any newer version of the patches since then that 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. https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-April/msg00541.html 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 and especially the OpenStack integration.
Regardless of what/who needs a feature, we're not going to rush to merge 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 the patches for review.
Sure, I will continue working on that. BR, Eli Qiao