On 2012-01-11 20:46, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 11.01.2012, at 20:41, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> On 01/11/2012 01:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would like to see us avoiding this in the future. Headers update >>>>> patches should mention the source and should not be merged until the ABI >>>>> changes actually made it at least into kvm.git. Same applies, of course, >>>>> to the functional changes related to that ABI. Otherwise we risk quite >>>>> some mess on everyone's side. >>>> >>>> I agree. >>>> >>>>> Another thing: KVM_CAP_PPC_HIOR has been removed again from the kernel >>>>> and also the header. Is there real free space now or will the cap >>>>> reappear? If there should better be a placeholder, let's add it (to the >>>>> kernel). >>>> >>>> I will reappear with ONE_REG semantics. >>>> >>> >>> OK. >>> >>> Then please clean up now so that update-linux-headers.sh can be used >>> again by "normal" developers. :) >> >> Before we did submodules and had a responsive BIOS maintainer, we maintained patches within qemu.git for our external dependencies. I think that's a good strategy here too. It's a little painful, but not entirely awful. >> >> At least it makes it possible for you to (hopefully) trivial rebase a patch if something is still in limbo. > > Yeah, that works. I can easily script that part. It doesn't solve the actual underlying problem though that we don't know when the abi is actually stable. I'm slowly starting to understand Pekka ;). IIRC, we never had this problem with qemu-kvm - as the merges were coordinated with the kernel (subsystem) tree. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
