On 03/23/2010 12:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/23/2010 11:31 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Chris Wright wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Yes, usability is a valid topic esp. if you promise to come w/ GUI
patches.
- state and roadmap for upstream merge of in-kernel device models
(looks to me like this central merge effort is stalled ATM)
- alternative path of merging qemu-kvm.git's implementation as is and
cleaning it up in qemu.git.
For kvm.git, I wouldn't dream of merging something with outstanding
issues and cleaning them up "later", but the situation is somewhat
different with qemu vs qemu-kvm.
So the benefit would be less merge conflicts/regressions on
qemu-kvm.git? But you may break non-x86 KVM support in upstream as it
already uses the cleaned up kvm subsystem. /me is not immediately
convinced...
The benefit would be that qemu-kvm.git would become a staging tree
instead of the master repository for kvm users. As an example, we
wouldn't have any bisectability problems. kvm features would need to be
written just once.
We are more than half-way through this, so let's focus efforts for the
last bits that make the difference widely negligible. This investment
should pay off rather quickly.
If we merge now, we merge the half-completed effort so we don't lose
anything. However, if we can complete the merge quickly, I'm all for
it. I don't want to introduce the ugliness into qemu.git any more than
you do.
Note, the above discussion ignores extboot and device assignment, but
let's focus on the thorny bits first.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
