From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:48299) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLxfo-0001jt-1b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:49:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLxfj-0001T2-Vw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:49:40 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.160.173]:37370) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLxfj-0001Sf-TL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:49:35 -0400 Received: by gya6 with SMTP id 6so1547850gya.4 for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:49:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4EB29BEB.4070603@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:49:31 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1317360376-12090-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <4EB07096.4070806@us.ibm.com> <4EB26EA5.4060606@redhat.com> <4EB291F4.8070503@us.ibm.com> <4EB29381.9060707@redhat.com> <4EB2993C.9000902@codemonkey.ws> <4EB29B00.10907@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4EB29B00.10907@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: Add PCI memory BAR in addition to PIO BAR List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Pekka Enberg , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, David Gibson , "Michael S. Tsirkin" On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> >>>> We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio >>>> changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qemu, or should >>>> it go (2), (1), (3)? >>> >>> 1. Informal discussion >> >> >> Where? Is this lkml? There were a number of virtio changes recently >> that never involved qemu-devel. > > Theoretically, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, if it still > exists. Maybe we need a virtio list. qemu-devel@, kvm@, lkml could be > copied. Perhaps it's time to create a virtio@vger? Just have a simple process that all spec changes to there the appropriate kernel, QEMU, virtio-win, or NKT maintainers can require any virtio change to also have a committed spec change first. > The point is that we can't drive virtio from either qemu or the kernel > any more. The spec represents the "virtual hardware manufacturer", > which qemu and linux/vhost (and others) emulate, and which linux (and > others) write drivers for. Yup. We need to be more rigorous about using the spec for that as we've not done a great job historically here. Regards, Anthony Liguori > >> >>> 2. Proposed spec patch, kernel change, qemu change >>> 3. Buy-ins from spec maintainer, kernel driver maintainer, qemu device >>> maintainer (only regarding the ABI, not the code) >> >> I don't think this is how it's working today. I would be happy with a >> flow like this. > > If Michael and Rusty agree, we can adopt it immediately. >