public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/GIT PULL] Linux KVM tool for v3.2
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:16:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1320419814.3334.45.camel@lappy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EB3F9CE.1050407@siemens.com>

On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 15:42 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-11-04 14:32, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > I know you don't see the benefits of integrated code base but I as a
> > developer do.
> 
> IIRC, this discussion still lacks striking, concrete examples from the
> KVM tool vs. QEMU development processes.

I'll give a current example: Michael and Rusty are currently considering
a change in the virtio spec (allowing MMIO config BARs - but thats
irrelevant).

I'll quote what Anthony said about how he sees the big picture of how
this change is going to be implemented - something which we all agree
with:

On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 09:37 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Well, what's needed before the spec is changed is an interesting question, but I 
> think the main thing is, don't commit any virtio ABI changes to vhost, QEMU, 
> NKT, or the kernel until the spec for the change has been committed.
> 
> It would be nice to have a working implementation before committing a spec 
> change.  Even nicer would be to have Acked-by's a maintainer in each area affected.

Which is pretty smart. Get a working implementation before we commit to
a spec.

Now, how would the development process look when the trees aren't
integrated? You'd try to get the kernel side stabilized, then you'd do
your usermode changes, go back to the kernel patches to fix bugs and
things people missed, which would require in turn new patches to the
usermode part, and so until you get 5-6 versions (best case) of this
change in *each* tree.

Add some technical difficulties which just make it uglier, such as
having to copy over new kernel headers into the usermode tool for each
new version you want to send (linux-headers/ dir in QEMU) and you get a
process which is not that pretty anymore :)

How would it look for an integrated project? You'd be working on the
same codebase, one series of patches would take care of both the kernel
changes and the userspace changes, this would speed up iterations and
make testing quite easier.

-- 

Sasha.


  reply	other threads:[~2011-11-04 15:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-04  8:38 [RFC/GIT PULL] Linux KVM tool for v3.2 Pekka Enberg
2011-11-04 12:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-04 12:35   ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-04 13:02     ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-04 13:32       ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-04 14:42         ` Jan Kiszka
2011-11-04 15:16           ` Sasha Levin [this message]
2011-11-04 16:26             ` Jan Kiszka
2011-11-04 16:48               ` Sasha Levin
2011-11-04 17:33                 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-11-04 16:13           ` Joerg Roedel
2011-11-04 16:42             ` Jan Kiszka
2011-11-04 17:41               ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-04 13:14     ` Joerg Roedel
2011-11-04 14:47 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-11-08 14:44 ` richard -rw- weinberger
2011-11-08 15:36   ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-08 16:00     ` richard -rw- weinberger
2011-11-10  3:50 ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-10  6:46   ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-10  7:57     ` Markus Armbruster
2011-11-10  8:21       ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-10  8:23       ` Sasha Levin
2011-11-10  8:28         ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-10  8:57         ` Markus Armbruster
2011-11-10  9:04           ` Sasha Levin
2011-11-10  9:09             ` Avi Kivity
2011-11-10  9:14               ` Sasha Levin
2011-11-10  9:23                 ` Avi Kivity
2011-11-10  9:34                   ` Sasha Levin
2011-11-10  9:43                     ` Avi Kivity
2011-11-10  9:49                       ` Sasha Levin
2011-11-10  9:50                         ` Avi Kivity
2011-11-10  9:48             ` Markus Armbruster
2011-11-10 13:43     ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-10 13:56       ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-10 14:47         ` Markus Armbruster
2011-11-10 15:33           ` Stefan Hajnoczi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1320419814.3334.45.camel@lappy \
    --to=levinsasha928@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox