From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mi9FI-0000zj-A5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:56:40 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mi9FD-0000wd-OQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:56:40 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35171 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mi9FD-0000wP-Fl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:56:35 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f186.google.com ([209.85.222.186]:46566) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mi9FD-00073d-0A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:56:35 -0400 Received: by pzk16 with SMTP id 16so1496428pzk.18 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A9BF2AB.8080104@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:56:27 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1251181044-3696-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <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> In-Reply-To: <20090831143101.GA16943@amit-x200.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Amit Shah Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org 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. > 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 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. >> 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. Regards, Anthony Liguori