From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] provide in-kernel ioapic Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:20:34 -0500 Message-ID: <4AD32D22.5090001@us.ibm.com> References: <1254953315-5761-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1254953315-5761-2-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1254953315-5761-3-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1254953315-5761-4-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4ACDEDEC.60706@us.ibm.com> <4ACDEF03.6010406@redhat.com> <20091008160726.GD29691@shareable.org> <4ACE10B5.3080509@redhat.com> <20091008162248.GK16702@redhat.com> <20091009143225.GV8092@mothafucka.localdomain> <20091009164955.GC7393@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jamie Lokier , Glauber Costa , kvm-devel , Avi Kivity , Gleb Natapov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Juan Quintela Return-path: Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:43275 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756382AbZJLNVO (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:21:14 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n9CDH0MT022413 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:17:00 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n9CDKbK6236806 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:20:37 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n9CDHBCG020048 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:17:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Juan Quintela wrote: > I notice that discussion is going nowhere, basically we are in the > state: > - people that want one device > * they emulate the same hardware > * lots of code is shared > * they should be interchageable > * if they are not interchageable, it is a bug > * once that they are split, it is basically imposible to join then > again. > - people that want 2 devices: > * The devices can more easily diverge if they are two devices > * They are not interchageable now > * It allows you more freedom in changing any of them if they are > separate. > > As you can see, none of the proposals is a clear winner. And what is > worse, we have the two maintainers (avi and anthony), the two with more > experience having to deal with this kind of situation disagreeing. > > How to fix the impass? > We already have the single device model implementation and the limitations are well known. The best way to move forward is for someone to send out patches implementing separate device models. At that point, it becomes a discussion of two concrete pieces of code verses hand waving. > Later, Juan. > -- Regards, Anthony Liguori