From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mi9bp-0004AF-PG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:19:57 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mi9bl-00045c-3k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:19:57 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52889 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mi9bk-00045S-O2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:19:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37080) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mi9bk-0003Aj-9B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:19:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:49:25 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20090831161925.GA22928@amit-x200.redhat.com> References: <20090826112718.GA11117@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A980D18.30106@codemonkey.ws> <20090830101057.GB32563@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A9A7525.6010707@codemonkey.ws> <20090830131738.GC3401@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A9BCD61.2040903@codemonkey.ws> <20090831135147.GA16371@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A9BDC59.1090801@codemonkey.ws> <20090831143101.GA16943@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A9BF2AB.8080104@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A9BF2AB.8080104@codemonkey.ws> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Extending virtio_console to support multiple ports List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [10:56:27], Anthony Liguori wrote: > Amit Shah wrote: >> On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [09:21:13], Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> Amit Shah wrote: >>> >>>> Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging >>>> the two drivers? >>>> >>> Because they do the same thing. I'm not going to constantly rehash >>> this. It's been explained multiple times. >>> >> >> It hardly looks like the same thing each passing day. >> > > That's BS. The very first time you posted, you received the same > feedback from both Paul and I. See > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/44778. That was back > in June. You've consistently received the same feedback both on the ML > and in private. I'm just saying they all start looking the same. >> We're ending up having to compromise on the performance or functionality >> or simplicity the devices just because of this restriction. >> > > This is _not_ a high performance device and there so far has been no > functionality impact. I don't understand why you keep dragging your > feet about this. It's very simple, if you post a functional set of > patches for a converged virtio-console driver, we'll merge it. If you I have already posted them and have received no feedback about the patches since. Let me add another request here for you to review them. > keep arguing about having a separate virtio-serial driver, it's not > going to get merged. I don't know how to be more clear than this. I'm not at all arguing for a separate virtio-serial driver. Please note the difference in what I'm asking for: I'm just asking for a good justification for the merging of the two since it just makes both the drivers not simple and also introduces dependencies on code outside our control. >>> If there are implementation issues within the Linux drivers because >>> of peculiarities of hvc then hvc needs to be fixed. It has nothing >>> to do with the driver ABI which is what qemu cares about. >>> >> >> I'd welcome that effort as well. But we all know that's not going to >> happen anytime soon. >> > > That is not a justification to add a new device in QEMU. If we add a > new device everytime we encounter a less than ideal interface within a > guest, we're going to end up having hundreds of devices. I just find this argument funny. Amit