[Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for July 20

[Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for July 20

[Chris Wright]

0.12.stable
- start w/ git tree + pull requests
- release process is separate from commit access
- justin will put up a tree for pull requests
- there's current backlog, what about that?
- anthony's concern with -stable is the testing (upstream tree gets more
  testing than -stable)
- 0.12.5?
  - planning to do next w/ 0.13 release
  - aurelien may cut a release
  - justin will do some sanity testing, most patches are in fedora anyway

0.13
- rc RSN (hopefully this week, top priority for anthony)

kvm testsuite
- was planning to clean up and contribute to qemu
- now thinking perhaps just split it out to its own repo
  - not really qemu code, not really kvm code, not cross compile, etc..
  - could use std serial device
  - could use vga (needs mmio space)
  - 
- would like to add nested svm and (more important) nested vmx
  - small bit to copy l1 to l2 state, to make guest nested
  - need framework, can then require nested patches come w/ regression tests
- current testsuite failing on qemu (shows softmmu issues, any takers?)

fw_cfg issues
- mostly on list
- concerns about dma interface (too close to use case specific hack)
- rep could be optimized in general
  - each byte == function call
- possible pull in 4k (instead of 1k) on each exit
- bar for changes should be no new interfaces

Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for July 20

[Aurelien Jarno]

It's a pitty I can't easily attend to this conference call, as it seems
a lot of decisions are taken there. Anyway let me comment the part
concerning 0.12 stable:

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 07:45:51AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> 0.12.stable
> - start w/ git tree + pull requests
> - release process is separate from commit access
> - justin will put up a tree for pull requests
> - there's current backlog, what about that?

I think someone should actively follow the patches committed to HEAD and
backport them when they seems to be stable material. I guess it's what's
Justin plans to do.

OTOH, it might be useful if people sending patches to HEAD adds a small
comment about cherry-picking the patch to stable if it applies.

> - anthony's concern with -stable is the testing (upstream tree gets more
>   testing than -stable)

Debian gets regular uploads with the contents of the -stable tree
between to releases. Also patches from trunk are all cherry-picked from
HEAD.

> - 0.12.5?
>   - planning to do next w/ 0.13 release
>   - aurelien may cut a release

Following the minutes from last week, I sent a call for release, with a
deadline today. I only got the patch series from Kevin. There are
currently 44 patches waiting in the stable tree, so I guess we can go
for a release. I plan to do that later this week if nobody opposes.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno	                        GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

[Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call minutes for July 20

[David S. Ahern]

On 07/20/10 08:45, Chris Wright wrote:
> 0.13
> - rc RSN (hopefully this week, top priority for anthony)

Can Cam's inter-vm shared memory device get committed for 0.13? It's
been stagnant on the list for a while now waiting for inclusion (or NAK
comments).

David

Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for July 20

[Anthony Liguori]

On 07/20/2010 11:29 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> It's a pitty I can't easily attend to this conference call, as it seems
> a lot of decisions are taken there. Anyway let me comment the part
> concerning 0.12 stable:
>    

Is it a matter of time zone or conflict?  The call has historically been 
centered around KVM issues but these days it's hard to make such a clear 
distinction..

> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 07:45:51AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
>    
>> 0.12.stable
>> - start w/ git tree + pull requests
>> - release process is separate from commit access
>> - justin will put up a tree for pull requests
>> - there's current backlog, what about that?
>>      
> I think someone should actively follow the patches committed to HEAD and
> backport them when they seems to be stable material. I guess it's what's
> Justin plans to do.
>
> OTOH, it might be useful if people sending patches to HEAD adds a small
> comment about cherry-picking the patch to stable if it applies.
>    

My big concern with -stable is testing.  For folks interested in helping 
out, what I'd really like to see is people explicitly testing their 
patches on -stable.  IOW, just saying "this is probably stable material" 
is not nearly as helpful as saying, "I've verified this cherry picks 
cleanly to stable and tested there."

>> - anthony's concern with -stable is the testing (upstream tree gets more
>>    testing than -stable)
>>      
> Debian gets regular uploads with the contents of the -stable tree
> between to releases. Also patches from trunk are all cherry-picked from
> HEAD.
>    

That's good to know.  My main point was that proportionately speaking, 
the master branch gets considerably more testing than the stable 
branch.  Considering that there is a higher expectation of stable too, 
the testing requirement for it is pretty high in my opinion.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>> - 0.12.5?
>>    - planning to do next w/ 0.13 release
>>    - aurelien may cut a release
>>      
> Following the minutes from last week, I sent a call for release, with a
> deadline today. I only got the patch series from Kevin. There are
> currently 44 patches waiting in the stable tree, so I guess we can go
> for a release. I plan to do that later this week if nobody opposes.
>
>