Jan Kiszka wrote:
Pushing things upstream is quite difficult because of the very different
infrastructure.
Isn't the midterm goal to get rid of most of these differences (namely
libkvm)?
Yes, but not by removing existing functionality.
No one said this.
I'm sure no one meant it either, but that is what's happening.
This is the flow:
* qemu.git has very limited kvm support
* more kvm support is added to qemu.git
* because it's a rewrite, not all the knowledge that has gone into
qemu-kvm.git is added
* when I merge qemu.git into qemu-kvm.git, the two implementation
methods clash, and things break
This has happened on most clean rewrites I've seen. The new code is
clean, but the old code works better. It's much better to morph the old
code into shape (though more time consuming and a lot less fun).
As is, we're adding something simple, then discovering it's
insufficient. We're throwing away information, that's not a good way to
make progress.
I doubt this applies here.
In fact it's happened. qemu-kvm.git knows that the dirty logging flag
is a shared resource. qemu-kvm.git also handles older kernels (though I
think that was intentional).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
