Re: KVM call agenda for Mar 23

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 03/23/2010 01:13 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> The benefit would be that qemu-kvm.git would become a staging tree
>> instead of the master repository for kvm users.  As an example, we
>> wouldn't have any bisectability problems.  kvm features would need to be
>> written just once.
>>
>>      
> The last item would imply throwing away what qemu.git already cleaned up
> - or finally convert the rest. There is no lazy path.
>    

The code would remain but be disabled (#ifdef KVM_UPSTREAM) (just as 
with qemu-kvm.git).  The only difference is qemu.git would be usable for 
kvm users.

I'd prefer it if the cleanup happened out-of-tree and quickly.

>>> We are more than half-way through this, so let's focus efforts for the
>>> last bits that make the difference widely negligible. This investment
>>> should pay off rather quickly.
>>>
>>>        
>> If we merge now, we merge the half-completed effort so we don't lose
>> anything.  However, if we can complete the merge quickly, I'm all for
>> it.  I don't want to introduce the ugliness into qemu.git any more than
>> you do.
>>      
> One issue of merging blindly is the command line option zoo of qemu-kvm.
> I don't think we want this upstream first and then deprecate it quickly
> again.
>    

Good point.

>> Note, the above discussion ignores extboot and device assignment, but
>> let's focus on the thorny bits first.
>>
>>      
> I don't think extboot will make it upstream anymore, now that there is
> an effort for a gpxe-based virtio boot loader.
>    

Sure, an equivalent is fine.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function