From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@misterjones.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/12] KVM: ARM: Introduce
 =?UTF-8?Q?KVM=5FSET=5FDEVICE=5FA?= =?UTF-8?Q?DDRESS=20ioctl?=
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:22:39 +0100
Message-ID: <2ebf41d65170b9534c54c0c5f91a4b99@localhost>
References: <CANM98qL=tisS_6rqPYHvo+xJUfC_WzypHABK2H_Ac+4Sqwb3-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1357687783.10453.9@snotra>
 <CANM98q+=5gZ+=muw4UHy5hQ8D6zqz--BLa4Z0C39dnUxeCOWfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <9D32C496-91DE-44FC-BB1A-305BCE4A90CD@suse.de>
 <CAFEAcA99j=9dVz1YwZPZJ5tXR7ODQ4rZN_vfN046Bf7Yc1SQKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <86D3D406-05C3-4569-AD03-3223B46D47D9@suse.de>
 <CAFEAcA9z+kaSpVU3c8dWDHEnuGEri1JRZeS2+F5d2EefnX0oyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Christoffer Dall <c.dall@virtualopensystems.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
 Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>,
 kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Return-path: <linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9z+kaSpVU3c8dWDHEnuGEri1JRZeS2+F5d2EefnX0oyQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-arm-kernel>,
 <mailto:linux-arm-kernel-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-arm-kernel-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel>,
 <mailto:linux-arm-kernel-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org
Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:11:39 +0000, Peter Maydell
<peter.maydell@linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 9 January 2013 14:58, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, that was the basic idea. Considering that the patch set hasn't
>> been going
>> in for another 2 months after that discussion indicates that this isn't
>> too much of
>> an issue though :).
> 
> We might get there faster if people didn't keep nitpicking the APIs at
the
> last minute :-)

Exactly. We're trying hard to get the damned thing merged, and the
permanent API churn quickly becomes a burden.

My understanding was that a consensus was reached 2 months ago. Has
something fundamentally changed? Something that makes this API invalid? If
not, can we please keep this one?

Thanks,

        M.
-- 
Who you jivin' with that Cosmik Debris?