From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JITcz-0005AP-PQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:50:13 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JITcy-00058B-Nu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:50:13 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JITcy-00057z-K0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:50:12 -0500 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.229]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JITcy-0003rb-AO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:50:12 -0500 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c37so1632465wra.19 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:50:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <479A2F6D.6010007@codemonkey.ws> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:50:21 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [Qemu-devel] Merging KVM QEMU changes upstream References: <479A222E.4@us.ibm.com> <200801251843.37551.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200801251843.37551.paul@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Brook Cc: kvm-devel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Paul Brook wrote: >> Is this a reasonable merge strategy? We won't introduce regressions but >> I can't guarantee these new things will work cross-architecture. >> > > I think it depends to some extent whether things will need rewriting to be > made cross-architecture. In particular if this requires interface changes. > This means either breaking existing guests, or having to support both > interfaces. > That's a reasonable stance to take. I don't think anything in the tree right now presents that problem. I'll start sending out some patches and if you have specific concerns, we can talk about them 1-by-1. > e.g. the extboot stuff seems like something that should be usable by all > targets, except that the current interface looks like it's inherently x86 > specific. > Well with extboot in particular, the only interface is between the extboot option ROM and QEMU and I don't think that breaking that interface will matter much in practice. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > kvm-devel mailing list > kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel >