From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: Extending virtio_console to support multiple ports Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:56:27 -0500 Message-ID: <4A9BF2AB.8080104@codemonkey.ws> References: <1251181044-3696-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <20090826112718.GA11117@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A980D18.30106@codemonkey.ws> <20090830101057.GB32563@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A9A7525.6010707@codemonkey.ws> <20090830131738.GC3401@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A9BCD61.2040903@codemonkey.ws> <20090831135147.GA16371@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A9BDC59.1090801@codemonkey.ws> <20090831143101.GA16943@amit-x200.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Amit Shah Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090831143101.GA16943@amit-x200.redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Amit Shah wrote: > On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [09:21:13], Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Amit Shah wrote: >> >>> Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging >>> the two drivers? >>> >>> >> Because they do the same thing. I'm not going to constantly rehash >> this. It's been explained multiple times. >> > > It hardly looks like the same thing each passing day. > That's BS. The very first time you posted, you received the same feedback from both Paul and I. See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/44778. That was back in June. You've consistently received the same feedback both on the ML and in private. > We're ending up having to compromise on the performance or functionality > or simplicity the devices just because of this restriction. > This is _not_ a high performance device and there so far has been no functionality impact. I don't understand why you keep dragging your feet about this. It's very simple, if you post a functional set of patches for a converged virtio-console driver, we'll merge it. If you keep arguing about having a separate virtio-serial driver, it's not going to get merged. I don't know how to be more clear than this. >> If there are implementation issues within the Linux drivers because of >> peculiarities of hvc then hvc needs to be fixed. It has nothing to do >> with the driver ABI which is what qemu cares about. >> > > I'd welcome that effort as well. But we all know that's not going to > happen anytime soon. > That is not a justification to add a new device in QEMU. If we add a new device everytime we encounter a less than ideal interface within a guest, we're going to end up having hundreds of devices. Regards, Anthony Liguori