From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:38:19 -0600 Message-ID: <4F0DE52B.8030105@codemonkey.ws> References: <4F0DE028.4050707@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel , kvm To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:50311 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756665Ab2AKTiZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:38:25 -0500 Received: by iabz25 with SMTP id z25so1517980iab.19 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:38:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/11/2012 01:32 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 11.01.2012, at 20:16, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm a bit unhappy about the current state of our supposed to be >> automatically sync'ed linux-headers directory in qemu. It has been >> updated several times against undefined kernel trees, means against >> neither a released version nor kvm.git. Now, if I run an update against >> kvm.git + some local change, I get a churn of removals. Same will happen >> when that local change ever goes upstream before the other stuff got >> finally committed. > > Yes, call me even more unhappy about it :(. May I suggest the following: 1) Have the header syncing script take a commit hash that's stored in git. Make script ensure that this has is in Linus' tree. 2) Maintain a patch on top of Linus' tree in qemu.git that the script would apply before actually syncing header files. That let's us track how we're differing from upstream in a more reliable fashion. >> Alex, it looks to me like this is mostly PPC stuff. Can you comment on >> the origin and workflow? E.g. KVM_CAP_SW_TLB: This has been added half a >> year ago but is not in any Linux release around. Fishy... > > Ok, here's my workflow: > > * KVM: receive patches on the ML > * KVM: wait for reviews, review myself > * KVM: send out a pull request > -- this is the point in time where I assume the ABI can be considered stable -- > * QEMU: run update on the headers, because in a perfect world things should hit kvm.git any day > * KVM: pull request gets reviews causing not-pulls or abi changes and lots of churn because i need forever to pullreq again ;) > > I guess you see the problem. Hence I haven't pushed any kernel header updates since I realized how badly broken that process was. However even the stuff that's in qemu.git now hasn't managed to get upstream yet. I don't think it's a broken process. I think you made a reasonable set of assumptions. I think it was just an exceptional circumstance. Regards, Anthony Liguori