Re: KVM call agenda for Mar 23

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 03/23/2010 12:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
>> On 03/23/2010 11:31 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>      
>>> Chris Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, usability is a valid topic esp. if you promise to come w/ GUI
>>>> patches.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> - state and roadmap for upstream merge of in-kernel device models
>>>     (looks to me like this central merge effort is stalled ATM)
>>>
>>>        
>> - alternative path of merging qemu-kvm.git's implementation as is and
>> cleaning it up in qemu.git.
>>
>> For kvm.git, I wouldn't dream of merging something with outstanding
>> issues and cleaning them up "later", but the situation is somewhat
>> different with qemu vs qemu-kvm.
>>
>>      
> So the benefit would be less merge conflicts/regressions on
> qemu-kvm.git? But you may break non-x86 KVM support in upstream as it
> already uses the cleaned up kvm subsystem. /me is not immediately
> convinced...
>    

The benefit would be that qemu-kvm.git would become a staging tree 
instead of the master repository for kvm users.  As an example, we 
wouldn't have any bisectability problems.  kvm features would need to be 
written just once.


> We are more than half-way through this, so let's focus efforts for the
> last bits that make the difference widely negligible. This investment
> should pay off rather quickly.
>    

If we merge now, we merge the half-completed effort so we don't lose 
anything.  However, if we can complete the merge quickly, I'm all for 
it.  I don't want to introduce the ugliness into qemu.git any more than 
you do.

Note, the above discussion ignores extboot and device assignment, but 
let's focus on the thorny bits first.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function