From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ME415-0004Er-8J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:17:39 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ME410-0004CR-BR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:17:38 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36429 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ME40z-0004CF-W7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:17:34 -0400
Received: from lizzard.sbs.de ([194.138.37.39]:16237)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>) id 1ME40z-0001Vi-Hy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:17:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4A2E8B15.3010401@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:17:25 +0200
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1244563466-32598-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1244563466-32598-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] create kvm-shared-all.c and kvm-shared.h
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Glauber Costa wrote:
> Following a suggestion given by Jan, the idea here is to
> move shared pieces between qemu and qemu-kvm.git into a common
> file, so we can do sharing while avoid clashes.
> 
> In the future, this files should disappear.
> 

OK for the header - but why do we have to push the ioctl services into a
separate module? Will all functions qemu-kvm start to use from upstream
have to be pushed around? Or what is special about the ioctls?

I rather think qemu-kvm should build kvm-all.c and #ifdef out those
parts which collide with its own implementation. Moreover, when we morph
qemu-kvm services for upstream, this could already happen where they
shall once be located: in kvm-all.c or target-*/kvm.c.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux