On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:08:04AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > The patch has been in circulation for weeks, is well tested/reviewed > (and I hope its considered well written), and I want to get on with my > life ;). Hey, I feel your pain, I've been reviewing these .. > Your proposal doesn't change the user->kern ABI, so any > consolidation will be just an internal change to the kernel code only. > People can start using the interface today to build things, and we can > fix up the internal code later once your proposals have had a chance to > be shaped after review, etc (which I know from experience can take a > while and change radically though the course ;). > > IOW: The only thing waiting does is hide the history of the edit, since > whatever change is proposed is invariably the same amount of work for me > to convert it over. Its purely a question of whether its folded into > the history or visible as two change records. Based on that. I don't > see any problem with it just going in now. Its certainly ready from my > perspective. > > So I guess the question is: What's your objection? No objections, only comments ;) > (BTW: I am talking about the yet unpublished "v9" which addresses all > your other comments sans the io_bus interface changes. I thought we agreed on the io_bus approach. What changed? > Will push out > later today) BTW, is the group removal race handled there somehow? Here's what I have in mind: kvm does lock dev = find unlock <---------- at this point group device is removed write access to device that has been removed -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
