From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nu1nI-0007iJ-Dq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:57:08 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37408 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nu1nI-0007i8-11 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:57:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nu1nH-0006KQ-6d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:57:07 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51944) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nu1nG-0006KK-Oo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:57:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA89E7F.2010200@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:57:03 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20100323061140.GN29498@x200.localdomain> <4BA88A6F.2050703@web.de> <4BA88F5D.6040008@redhat.com> <4BA89D09.8040700@web.de> In-Reply-To: <4BA89D09.8040700@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for Mar 23 List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Chris Wright , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On 03/23/2010 12:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 03/23/2010 11:31 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >>> Chris Wright wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering. >>>> >>>> Yes, usability is a valid topic esp. if you promise to come w/ GUI >>>> patches. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> - state and roadmap for upstream merge of in-kernel device models >>> (looks to me like this central merge effort is stalled ATM) >>> >>> >> - alternative path of merging qemu-kvm.git's implementation as is and >> cleaning it up in qemu.git. >> >> For kvm.git, I wouldn't dream of merging something with outstanding >> issues and cleaning them up "later", but the situation is somewhat >> different with qemu vs qemu-kvm. >> >> > So the benefit would be less merge conflicts/regressions on > qemu-kvm.git? But you may break non-x86 KVM support in upstream as it > already uses the cleaned up kvm subsystem. /me is not immediately > convinced... > The benefit would be that qemu-kvm.git would become a staging tree instead of the master repository for kvm users. As an example, we wouldn't have any bisectability problems. kvm features would need to be written just once. > We are more than half-way through this, so let's focus efforts for the > last bits that make the difference widely negligible. This investment > should pay off rather quickly. > If we merge now, we merge the half-completed effort so we don't lose anything. However, if we can complete the merge quickly, I'm all for it. I don't want to introduce the ugliness into qemu.git any more than you do. Note, the above discussion ignores extboot and device assignment, but let's focus on the thorny bits first. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function