From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: KVM call agenda for Mar 23 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:57:03 +0200 Message-ID: <4BA89E7F.2010200@redhat.com> References: <20100323061140.GN29498@x200.localdomain> <4BA88A6F.2050703@web.de> <4BA88F5D.6040008@redhat.com> <4BA89D09.8040700@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Chris Wright , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57954 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751389Ab0CWK5H (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:57:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BA89D09.8040700@web.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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