From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:50:11 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 01/12] KVM: ARM: Introduce =?UTF-8?Q?KVM=5FSET=5FDEVICE=5FA?= =?UTF-8?Q?DDRESS=20ioctl?= In-Reply-To: <13B0CEB2-8D36-48AE-BE0E-02D6231052CF@suse.de> References: <1357687783.10453.9@snotra> <9D32C496-91DE-44FC-BB1A-305BCE4A90CD@suse.de> <86D3D406-05C3-4569-AD03-3223B46D47D9@suse.de> <2ebf41d65170b9534c54c0c5f91a4b99@localhost> <13B0CEB2-8D36-48AE-BE0E-02D6231052CF@suse.de> Message-ID: <0c1e99864fe87de92aa86a70504b9f73@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:28:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 09.01.2013, at 16:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:11:39 +0000, Peter Maydell >> >> wrote: >>> On 9 January 2013 14:58, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> Yeah, that was the basic idea. Considering that the patch set hasn't >>>> been going >>>> in for another 2 months after that discussion indicates that this isn't >>>> too much of >>>> an issue though :). >>> >>> We might get there faster if people didn't keep nitpicking the APIs at >> the >>> last minute :-) >> >> Exactly. We're trying hard to get the damned thing merged, and the >> permanent API churn quickly becomes a burden. > > As I said earlier, we have had a lot of experience in creating really bad > APIs in the past. Is this one really bad? Again, what changed in the meantime that makes you think this API is wrong? > But how about making this one specific? Call it KVM_ARM_SET_VGIC_ADDRESS, > keep the rest as it is, resend it, and later we can come up with an > actually generic interface. Let's pretend you never wrote that, shall we? ;-) M. -- Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick two.