Re: KVM call minutes for Feb 1

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 02/01/2011 10:36 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-02-01 16:54, Chris Wright wrote:
>    
>> KVM upstream merge: status, plans, coordination
>> - Jan has a git tree, consolidating
>> - qemu-kvm io threading is still an issue
>> - Anthony wants to just merge
>>    - concerns with non-x86 arch and merge
>>    - concerns with big-bang patch merge and following stability
>> - post 0.14 conversion to glib mainloop, non-upstreamed qemu-kvm will be
>>    a problem if it's not there by then
>> - testing and nuances are still an issue (e.g. stefan berger's mmio read issue)
>> - qemu-kvm still evolving, needs to get sync'd or it will keep diverging
>> - 2 implementations of main init, cpu init, Jan has merged them into one
>>    - qemu-kvm-x86.c file that's only a few hundred lines
>> - review as one patch to see the fundamental difference
>>      
> More precisely, my current work flow is to pick some function(s), e.g.
> kvm_cpu_exec/kvm_run, and start wondering "What needs to be done to
> upstream so that qemu-kvm could use that implementation?". If they
> differ, the reasons need to be understood and patched away, either by
> fixing/enhancing upstream or simplifying qemu-kvm. Once the upstream
> changes are merged back, a qemu-kvm patch is posted to switch to that
> version.
>
> Any help will be welcome, either via review of my subtle regressions or
> on resolving concrete differences.
>
> E.g. posix-aio-compat.c: Why does qemu-kvm differ here? If it's because
> of its own iothread code, can we wrap that away or do we need to
> consolidate the threading code first? Or do we need to fix something in
> upstream?
>    

I bet it's the eventfd thing.  It's arbitrary.  If you've got a small 
diff post your series, I'd be happy to take a look at it and see what I 
can explain.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Jan
>
>