On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:59:29 +0100, Peter Maydell > <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 13 July 2012 02:06, Rusty Russell <rusty.russell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> What do you want to do about the API breakage? Should we just insist > on >>> a lockstep qemu/kernel update, or some temporary bandaid in qemu? The >>> latter should be possible, but is it worth the hassle? >> >> I'm not fussed personally. Lockstep would be fine with me. I think >> we should do whatever's easiest unless there are active developers >> here that would be seriously inconvinienced by that... > > The sooner we switch to what we expect to be a stable API, the better. > There is only a handful of KVM/ARM developers, and I'm sure we can manage a > flag day switch. > > Same goes for the VGIC interrupt injection API. And if we can combine all > breakages in one go, it's even better ;-). > whoops, never responded to this one, lockstep is fine with me, we all seem to be well in sync. -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
