Re: Q: status of kvm/ subdir in qemu-kvm tarball?

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 02/23/2011 04:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >  The only situation where using kernel headers not provided
> >  by qemu itself is when you want to build qemu for older
> >  kernel and omit some features and runtime tests.  But this
> >  is hardly a good goal to support.
>
> I don't think the goal of the #ifdefs was ever some kind of size
> optimization but just for the sake of avoiding build breakages.
>

Yes.

> Well, "rm -r kvm" is a rather minor thing. But the header discussion is
> important IMO as we continue to see breakages in KVM builds (mostly qemu
> upstream) due to missing #ifdefs. That means:
>   - we do not test all variants (because it's impractical)

We could teach buildbot about it.

>   - people use older headers
>   - too much effort is wasted on fixing distributed problems that can be
>     solved centrally

Yes.  But on the other hand carrying headers is the Wrong Thing, isn't 
it?  If everyone did that we'd be in a mess of duplication.  I'd like 
not to contribute to that.

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