Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: Add PCI memory BAR in addition to PIO BAR

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>>> We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio
>>>> changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qemu, or should
>>>> it go (2), (1), (3)?
>>>
>>> 1. Informal discussion
>>
>>
>> Where?  Is this lkml?  There were a number of virtio changes recently
>> that never involved qemu-devel.
>
> Theoretically, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, if it still
> exists.  Maybe we need a virtio list. qemu-devel@, kvm@, lkml could be
> copied.

Perhaps it's time to create a virtio@vger?  Just have a simple process that all 
spec changes to there the appropriate kernel, QEMU, virtio-win, or NKT 
maintainers can require any virtio change to also have a committed spec change 
first.

> The point is that we can't drive virtio from either qemu or the kernel
> any more.  The spec represents the "virtual hardware manufacturer",
> which qemu and linux/vhost (and others) emulate, and which linux (and
> others) write drivers for.

Yup.  We need to be more rigorous about using the spec for that as we've not 
done a great job historically here.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
>>
>>> 2. Proposed spec patch, kernel change, qemu change
>>> 3. Buy-ins from spec maintainer, kernel driver maintainer, qemu device
>>> maintainer (only regarding the ABI, not the code)
>>
>> I don't think this is how it's working today.  I would be happy with a
>> flow like this.
>
> If Michael and Rusty agree, we can adopt it immediately.
>