From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
To: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: QEMU Summit Minutes 2025
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 11:23:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA-OmqRTqwYZ2WCeqFu=zxG65t6WSfKR=NthfpazrjzpzA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
As usual, we held a QEMU Summit meeting at KVM Forum. This is an
invite-only meeting for the most active maintainers and submaintainers
in the project, and we discuss various project-wide issues, usually
process stuff. We then post the minutes of the meeting to the list as
a jumping off point for wider discussion and for those who weren't
able to attend.
Attendees
=========
Markus Armbruster
Alex Bennée
Daniel P. Berrangé
Paolo Bonzini
Mark Cave-Ayland
Alex Graf
Stefan Hajnoczi
Richard Henderson
Thomas Huth
Cédric Le Goater
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Peter Maydell
Michael S. Tsirkin
Kevin Wolf
David Woodhouse
Agenda
======
Finances
--------
- The KVM Forum conference made a small profit; as with last year, we
plan to use this to help with the financing of the conference in
future years.
CI
--
- We have an Azure -> AWS CI hosting migration coming up as we have no
more Azure credits and we have AWS credits now.
- CI is still unreliable. We need to be more proactive at reporting
failures. qemu.git maintainers should submit issues when tests are
flaky so that test owners and private runner owners are aware of
test problems.
AI policy
---------
- Following the publication of our initial AI policy, there was discussion
about whether there had been any initial feedback or if there were
tweaks we wanted to make to it.
- Generally there didn't seem to have been much feedback so far (from
actual developers as opposed to the peanut gallery). The general
principle behind the policy is to protect the project from legal risks
related to copyright and license status of the output. There was
some discussion of whether there were simple useful cases where we
would be willing to take AI tool output that was an essentially
mechanical transformation with "limited creative content".
- There was no consensus in the meeting on whether we should
consider this sort of change to the policy now, or whether we
should give the initial policy some time, and collect feedback
based on that longer term experience before making changes.
- There is a patch on the mailing list proposing a change
to the policy to allow this kind of "limited creative content"
contribution:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20250925075630.352720-1-pbonzini@redhat.com/
- We plan to solicit feedback in spring next year on how the policy has
worked out in practice.
Release tarballs
----------------
- Our release tarballs are quite large, and 85% of them is just the
source of EDK2 which we include as the corresponding source for the
EDK2 ROM blobs. This seems a bit silly, since most consumers of the
tarball are either:
- downstream distros who will want to build their own ROM blobs
from the real upstream sources
- end users who don't want to build the ROM blobs at all
- We could perhaps usefully split the tarballs so that the ROM sources
and the ROM blobs are in their own tarballs and only people who need
them download them.
- Relatedly, it would be nice for the ROM blobs to be trivially
regenerable by anybody, rather than the current ad-hoc "some
trusted person builds a binary locally and we commit it to git"
setup. This should be much easier in these days of containers than
it was when we first started committing compiled blobs to git.
- However, nothing is fundamentally broken with our current setup, so
unless anybody who really wants to do this work is going to step
up we probably won't do anything ;-)
Shifting styles and incomplete API conversions
----------------------------------------------
- The project has lots of ways of achieving similar things with qdev, QOM,
etc. This makes it hard for contributors and reviewers to know how
something should be written, or which style to recommend in review.
Being asked to change APIs/style is disheartening.
This is unlikely to be something we can address easily, but some
things to aim for that came up in the conversation:
- we should be clear which APIs are legacy and must not be used in
new code
- we should update the old "unfinished transition" wiki page
- In particular, there is no current consensus on QOM casts
- Using the cast macros looks the neatest stylistically
- But it has a runtime overhead, which is irksome in cases where
actually at compile time we can be certain the pointer is of
a valid type (e.g. cast to parent type)
- Different reviewers put different weight on these factors,
causing conflicts about what to prefer.
thanks
-- PMM
next reply other threads:[~2025-10-17 10:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-17 10:23 Peter Maydell [this message]
2025-10-17 12:53 ` QEMU Summit Minutes 2025 BALATON Zoltan
2025-10-20 16:42 ` Peter Maydell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAFEAcA-OmqRTqwYZ2WCeqFu=zxG65t6WSfKR=NthfpazrjzpzA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).