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 14:29:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4BA8B417.3080207@redhat.com> References: <20100323061140.GN29498@x200.localdomain> <4BA88A6F.2050703@web.de> <4BA88F5D.6040008@redhat.com> <4BA89D09.8040700@web.de> <4BA89E7F.2010200@redhat.com> <4BA8A26E.2070403@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]:48675 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752910Ab0CWMaq (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:30:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BA8A26E.2070403@web.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/23/2010 01:13 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > The last item would imply throwing away what qemu.git already cleaned up > - or finally convert the rest. There is no lazy path. > The code would remain but be disabled (#ifdef KVM_UPSTREAM) (just as with qemu-kvm.git). The only difference is qemu.git would be usable for kvm users. I'd prefer it if the cleanup happened out-of-tree and quickly. >>> 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. >> > One issue of merging blindly is the command line option zoo of qemu-kvm. > I don't think we want this upstream first and then deprecate it quickly > again. > Good point. >> Note, the above discussion ignores extboot and device assignment, but >> let's focus on the thorny bits first. >> >> > I don't think extboot will make it upstream anymore, now that there is > an effort for a gpxe-based virtio boot loader. > Sure, an equivalent is fine. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function