From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60958 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PkJmm-0000no-Id for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:13:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkJUF-00008X-AI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:53:52 -0500 Received: from mail-iw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:54741) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkJUF-00008T-4W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:53:51 -0500 Received: by iwc10 with SMTP id 10so124601iwc.4 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:53:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D483A9B.9000205@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:53:47 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20110201155414.GF28968@x200.localdomain> <4D48367D.2060802@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <4D48367D.2060802@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call minutes for Feb 1 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 02/01/2011 10:36 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-02-01 16:54, Chris Wright wrote: > >> KVM upstream merge: status, plans, coordination >> - Jan has a git tree, consolidating >> - qemu-kvm io threading is still an issue >> - Anthony wants to just merge >> - concerns with non-x86 arch and merge >> - concerns with big-bang patch merge and following stability >> - post 0.14 conversion to glib mainloop, non-upstreamed qemu-kvm will be >> a problem if it's not there by then >> - testing and nuances are still an issue (e.g. stefan berger's mmio read issue) >> - qemu-kvm still evolving, needs to get sync'd or it will keep diverging >> - 2 implementations of main init, cpu init, Jan has merged them into one >> - qemu-kvm-x86.c file that's only a few hundred lines >> - review as one patch to see the fundamental difference >> > More precisely, my current work flow is to pick some function(s), e.g. > kvm_cpu_exec/kvm_run, and start wondering "What needs to be done to > upstream so that qemu-kvm could use that implementation?". If they > differ, the reasons need to be understood and patched away, either by > fixing/enhancing upstream or simplifying qemu-kvm. Once the upstream > changes are merged back, a qemu-kvm patch is posted to switch to that > version. > > Any help will be welcome, either via review of my subtle regressions or > on resolving concrete differences. > > E.g. posix-aio-compat.c: Why does qemu-kvm differ here? If it's because > of its own iothread code, can we wrap that away or do we need to > consolidate the threading code first? Or do we need to fix something in > upstream? > I bet it's the eventfd thing. It's arbitrary. If you've got a small diff post your series, I'd be happy to take a look at it and see what I can explain. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Jan > >