Re: [kvmarm] [PATCH v5.1 0/2] KVM: ARM: Rename KVM_SET_DEVICE_ADDRESS

Alexander Graf
2013-01-10T11:16:02Z

On 09.01.2013, at 23:34, Alexander Graf wrote:

>
> On 09.01.2013, at 23:26, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2013 03:37:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.01.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> I get that there's a tradeoff between getting something in now, versus
>>>>> waiting until the API is more refined. Tagging it with a particular ISA
>>>>> seems like an odd way of saying "soon to be deprecated", though. What
>>>>> happens if we're still squabbling over the perfect replacement API when
>>>>> we're trying to push PPC MPIC stuff in?
>>>>
>>>> Then we're the ones who have to come up with a good interface.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about another bad one, with PPC in the name, and some pleas to hurry
>>> things up? :-)
>>>
>>> It's not as if there haven't been last-minute requests for API changes on
>>> the PPC side in the past...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is getting out of hand.
>>
>> Do you have another API for PPC, which was send for review and not
>> commented on several months ago that we can unify right now?
>>
>> If not, let's go with the ARM name and work on the generic API in the mean time.
>>
>> The end result will be something along 5 lines in a header files and 3
>> lines in a switch case that return -EINVAL if the interface is
>> completely deprecated later on, which is not a big problem.
>
> Agreed [1].
>
> So what exactly are we waiting for? Acks from kvm maintainers, right?

In fact, we should probably CC them :)

Alex