Re: [PATCH v1 00/14] s390x: virtio-mem support

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 02.10.24 11:04, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 10/1/24 10:54 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 30.09.24 23:49, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:29:19 +0200
>>> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27.09.24 20:20, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:09:27 +0200
>>>>> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> That is a valid point. But IMHO the benefit of having this independent,
>>> does not justify the churn of having a separate project with its
>>> own governance, and communication infrastructure. And I suppose for an
>>> open(?) specification, one would need those things.
>>
>> I don't see the need to bring in all that bureaucracy. The original idea
>> was simple: if QEMU/TCG or QEMU/KVM implement a hypercall (IOW: it was
>> acked by the s390x maintainers), we document it somewhere.
>>
>> Implementing something in QEMU and then modifying a KVM document in the
>> kernel tree sounded odd.
>>
>> It is a valid question to ask: what if any other hypervisor
>> (cloud-hypervisor etc.) would want to implement a custom diag500
>> hypercall, and who would ack it. But I don't really think that we would
>> have to sort this out this at this point in time.
>>
>>>
>>> No strong opinions though. If Christian, Janosch and Claudio are in
>>> favor of a separate "Specifications for open-source virtualization on
>>> s390x (IBM z Systems)" project, I'm fine with it as well.
>>
>> I'm more than happy if we don't need that. As said, I'm happy to
>> document wherever people tell me to document.
>>
>> 4 years ago we thought that having a separate repository was a good
>> idea, maybe it is no longer. In that case, s390x mainters please let me
>> know what to do :)
>>
> 
> I'd like to at least have a partial documentation in the kernel if not a
> full one. You can add a link to your repo to that.

Makes sense.

> 
> Even if they go out of sync I'd rather have documentation where I'd
> expect it (Linux) than only the repo. IMHO duplication isn't a gigantic
> issue here.

Agreed.

> 
> We also have an internal space where KVM architecture is being stored
> (currently a handful of documents) and we'll store it there as well,
> including a link to the repo.

Perfect. If there is a way to enable that repository, that would be 
great. For the time being I'll document it there as well.

Thanks!

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb