Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] xenner: add event channel implementation.

[Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> We'll certainly be sync'ing with upstream qemu now, yes. I'm not sure what
> Ian Jackson's plans are with regard to Gerd's patches. I think he was hoping
> that Gerd would post patches to xen-devel against his tree (being an
> existing and actively maintained and tested Xen patchset) and then we would
> from there submit to upstream.

There are two patchsets out there:

#1 for upstream qemu:
   http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/patches/qemu-upstream/

#2 for qemu-xen:
   http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/patches/qemu-xen/

The patchsets are largely identical, thats why I don't post both.
I usually post only the upstream version and include a pointer to the
qemu-xen patches in the intro text for the patchset.

Differences come (a) from the fact that qemu-xen is old (these should go
away once Ian synced with upstream) and (b) the slightly different
ordering to make the qemu-xen patchset bisection-friendly.

> Afaics there's some workflow or patchflow to
> be worked out here:

Workflow could look like this:

 (1) Ian merges upstream into qemu-xen.
 (2) I'll rebase my patches to the resulting tree.
 (3) Merge both patchsets, into the trees.

That should result in almost identical hw/xen* files in both trees, so
we don't end up with a big mess when Ian merges again.

> I can't see why we would take Gerd's patches wholesale
> when we have a working patchset already.

Which patchset you are refering to?  As far I know Ian & Samuel are
focusing on getting the changes to generic qemu code upstream (such as
serial and ide fixes which ran over the qemu-devel list already), not on
the xen support bits.

cheers,
  Gerd