Re: Extending virtio_console to support multiple ports

Amit Shah
2009-08-31T16:19:50Z

On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [10:56:27], Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 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.

I'm just saying they all start looking the same.

>> 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

I have already posted them and have received no feedback about the
patches since. Let me add another request here for you to review them.

> 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.

I'm not at all arguing for a separate virtio-serial driver. Please note
the difference in what I'm asking for: I'm just asking for a good
justification for the merging of the two since it just makes both the
drivers not simple and also introduces dependencies on code outside our
control.

>>> 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.

I just find this argument funny.

Amit