On 03/23/2010 04:52 AM, 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.
I don't think we can pull in:
- extboot
- ia64
- in-kernel pit[1]
- associated command line options
- device passthrough
The question is, if we dropped those things, would people actually use
qemu.git instead of qemu-kvm.git. If the answer is "no", what set of
things do we need in order for people to focus on qemu.git instead of
qemu-kvm.git.
[1] I'd like to revisit this discussion. We originally went the
in-kernel pit route because of difficulties changing qemu. That's a bad
reason to put something in the kernel. I'd prefer to see us fix qemu.
After that, we can look at in-kernel pit and see if there are any
remaining advantages (like performance). If it's significant, we can
still merge in-kernel pit.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
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
