From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Any plans to rebase kvm to current qemu at the moment ? Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:50:25 +0200 Message-ID: <470098B1.8010203@qumranet.com> References: <47008C5B.2080006@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4700930D.2030903@qumranet.com> <42DFA526FC41B1429CE7279EF83C6BDC754272@pdsmsx415.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: "Zhang, Xiantao" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <42DFA526FC41B1429CE7279EF83C6BDC754272-wq7ZOvIWXbMAbVU2wMM1CrfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Zhang, Xiantao wrote: > Hi Avi, > We also the similar problems, when we enable kvm/ipf. You know, > Qemu doesn't work on IPF both at host and guest sides. > So, we have some changes, and new-added stuffs to current Qemu code. Do > you think which tree we should push them to? Qemu upstream > or kvm-userspace? > qemu-upstream is best for changes that would benefit regular qemu. Changes that are only good for kvm should be in kvm-userspace. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/