From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tokarev Subject: Re: Q: status of kvm/ subdir in qemu-kvm tarball? Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:42:56 +0300 Message-ID: <4D64F2C0.4000609@msgid.tls.msk.ru> References: <4D64E9C6.8000505@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <4D64F008.7050308@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: KVM list Return-path: Received: from isrv.corpit.ru ([86.62.121.231]:33151 "EHLO isrv.corpit.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752143Ab1BWLm7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:42:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4D64F008.7050308@siemens.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 23.02.2011 14:31, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-02-23 12:04, Michael Tokarev wrote: >> What's the current status of files in kvm/ subdirectory >> in the qemu-kvm distribution (0.14 or git) ? [] > I think there are a few bits still in use: > > - kvm/kvm_stat this is a tiny useful tool, yes, and we package it. > - kvm/include (latest kernel headers) *) This directory is always used (in configure) unless -kerneldir is specified - who uses that nowadays? I dunno. > Otherwise, removing this cruft would be good. > > Jan > > *) This should really be discussed upstream again: Carry private copy of > kvm headers or rely on distro / kvm-kmod to provide required defines, > types etc.? I'm more and more in favor of option 1. Yes indeed, having current defines of all the features we actually support is a good idea. /mjt