Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 01/11/2012 01:48 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-11 20:46, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 11.01.2012, at 20:41, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/11/2012 01:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to see us avoiding this in the future. Headers update
>>>>>> patches should mention the source and should not be merged until the ABI
>>>>>> changes actually made it at least into kvm.git. Same applies, of course,
>>>>>> to the functional changes related to that ABI. Otherwise we risk quite
>>>>>> some mess on everyone's side.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another thing: KVM_CAP_PPC_HIOR has been removed again from the kernel
>>>>>> and also the header. Is there real free space now or will the cap
>>>>>> reappear? If there should better be a placeholder, let's add it (to the
>>>>>> kernel).
>>>>>
>>>>> I will reappear with ONE_REG semantics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>> Then please clean up now so that update-linux-headers.sh can be used
>>>> again by "normal" developers. :)
>>>
>>> Before we did submodules and had a responsive BIOS maintainer, we maintained patches within qemu.git for our external dependencies.  I think that's a good strategy here too.  It's a little painful, but not entirely awful.
>>>
>>> At least it makes it possible for you to (hopefully) trivial rebase a patch if something is still in limbo.
>>
>> Yeah, that works. I can easily script that part. It doesn't solve the actual underlying problem though that we don't know when the abi is actually stable. I'm slowly starting to understand Pekka ;).
>
> IIRC, we never had this problem with qemu-kvm - as the merges were
> coordinated with the kernel (subsystem) tree.

Are you suggesting that kvm header updates go through uq/master?  That seems 
reasonable to me and is certainly the least amount of change.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Jan
>