From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47938) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXfPT-0003sM-TJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:35:36 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXfPQ-0002AP-MH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:35:35 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45193) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXfPQ-0002AB-9G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:35:32 -0500 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D9648EA41 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 01:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:35:21 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20160222013521.GA14065@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <1455428503-2113-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <87povy5mim.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20160215103440.GC7978@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <87y4amhuz2.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20160215152205.GC898@redhat.com> <20160218044056.GL7978@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <20160218165208.vdf4ycsrn3qwxd2x@hawk.localdomain> <1455815421.3968.12.camel@redhat.com> <20160219015513.GA17229@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <1455885189.3968.23.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1455885189.3968.23.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/2] ARM: add QMP command to query GIC version List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andrea Bolognani Cc: wei@redhat.com, Andrew Jones , libvir-list@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 01:33:09PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > I didn't say it would be hard :) > > I just said that such compatibility code would have to be kept > around forever. We already support lots and lots of similar cases > in libvirt, the difference being that in this case we would add > support for a new command *knowing in advance* that it will become > obsolete as soon as a proper implementation is available. > > It might still be the right thing to do! I just want to make sure > everything's been properly considered and discussed beforehand. I totally agree with you to think more before doing. :) Then I will try to move on. Appreciate for all the review comments! Peter