From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ME4Eq-0003NR-9G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:31:52 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ME4El-0003Kh-H1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:31:51 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42471 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ME4El-0003KW-BP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:31:47 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:35090)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <glommer@redhat.com>) id 1ME4Ek-0004dY-Rg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:31:47 -0400
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:37:46 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20090609163746.GN11966@poweredge.glommer>
References: <1244563466-32598-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>
	<4A2E8B15.3010401@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A2E8B15.3010401@siemens.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] create kvm-shared-all.c and kvm-shared.h
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 06:17:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Glauber Costa wrote:
> > Following a suggestion given by Jan, the idea here is to
> > move shared pieces between qemu and qemu-kvm.git into a common
> > file, so we can do sharing while avoid clashes.
> > 
> > In the future, this files should disappear.
> > 
> 
> OK for the header - but why do we have to push the ioctl services into a
> separate module? Will all functions qemu-kvm start to use from upstream
> have to be pushed around? Or what is special about the ioctls?
> 
> I rather think qemu-kvm should build kvm-all.c and #ifdef out those
> parts which collide with its own implementation. Moreover, when we morph
> qemu-kvm services for upstream, this could already happen where they
> shall once be located: in kvm-all.c or target-*/kvm.c.
I also think qemu-kvm should build kvm-all.c. But right now, it is so full
of conflicts, that it would be impossible. My go with the module, is, whenever
we move all the code in kvm-all.c away, it should mean it is safe to go back to
it: qemu-kvm will be granted not to conflict with it.