From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:43:32 +0000 Subject: Re: qemu-kvm.git now live Message-Id: <49F9C724.7090501@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <49F08BD0.6000706@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <49F08BD0.6000706@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Pushing things upstream is quite difficult because of the very different >>>> infrastructure. >>>> >>>> >>> Isn't the midterm goal to get rid of most of these differences (namely >>> libkvm)? >>> >>> >> Yes, but not by removing existing functionality. >> > > No one said this. > I'm sure no one meant it either, but that is what's happening. This is the flow: * qemu.git has very limited kvm support * more kvm support is added to qemu.git * because it's a rewrite, not all the knowledge that has gone into qemu-kvm.git is added * when I merge qemu.git into qemu-kvm.git, the two implementation methods clash, and things break This has happened on most clean rewrites I've seen. The new code is clean, but the old code works better. It's much better to morph the old code into shape (though more time consuming and a lot less fun). >> As is, we're adding something simple, then discovering it's >> insufficient. We're throwing away information, that's not a good way to >> make progress. >> > > I doubt this applies here. > In fact it's happened. qemu-kvm.git knows that the dirty logging flag is a shared resource. qemu-kvm.git also handles older kernels (though I think that was intentional). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function