From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MvFJh-0000nT-0Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:03:21 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MvFJc-0000dT-5B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:03:20 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53062 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MvFJb-0000dE-VO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:03:15 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.221.173]:57108) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MvFJb-0003yj-Ci for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:03:15 -0400 Received: by qyk3 with SMTP id 3so3702660qyk.4 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4ACB946E.3020307@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:03:10 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] eepro100: Add more i825xx devices References: <1253358129-10347-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de> <4AC9F328.3020609@codemonkey.ws> <4ACA355C.1080802@mail.berlios.de> <4ACA40CB.8070604@codemonkey.ws> <4ACB7084.6000609@mail.berlios.de> In-Reply-To: <4ACB7084.6000609@mail.berlios.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: QEMU Developers Stefan Weil wrote: > Anthony Liguori schrieb: > >> Stefan Weil wrote: >> >>> Anthony, you asked me to send my maintainer version from >>> git://repo.or.cz/qemu/ar7.git >>> in small patches. Of course, the final goal is to have devices which >>> work. >>> >>> To have a list of devices which should be supported helps other >>> people who want >>> to contribute to eepro100.c. They won't write code just for i82557c >>> if the same >>> code should be applied to i82557[ab] as well, for example. >>> >>> >> You can do that with comments instead of exposing broken devices to an >> end-user. >> >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori >> >> > > 1. The new devices are not exposed to end-users, at least not for the > moment. > They are, or will be soon, thanks to qdev. > 2. Many qemu devices are more or less "broken". This is quite normal for an > emulation, because developers of those emulations only have limited > documentation / resources / testing capabilities. > Works in some circumstances and completely untested and expected to fail are two separate things. > So a reasonable way might be to expose many devices to end-users, but > to classify them as stable / testing / experimental (like it is done for the > host and target support). > Code that has no chance of working shouldn't be in the tree because it's untestable. Untestable code will rot. More to the point, what's the point of having untested code in the tree when the expectation is that it won't work at all? Who does it benefit? Regards, Anthony Liguori > Regards > Stefan Weil > >