On 09.01.2013, at 23:26, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 01/09/2013 03:37:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 09.01.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>>> I get that there's a tradeoff between getting something in now, versus >>>> waiting until the API is more refined. Tagging it with a particular ISA >>>> seems like an odd way of saying "soon to be deprecated", though. What >>>> happens if we're still squabbling over the perfect replacement API when >>>> we're trying to push PPC MPIC stuff in? >>> >>> Then we're the ones who have to come up with a good interface. >> >> >> How about another bad one, with PPC in the name, and some pleas to hurry >> things up? :-) >> >> It's not as if there haven't been last-minute requests for API changes on >> the PPC side in the past... >> >> > > This is getting out of hand. > > Do you have another API for PPC, which was send for review and not > commented on several months ago that we can unify right now? > > If not, let's go with the ARM name and work on the generic API in the mean time. > > The end result will be something along 5 lines in a header files and 3 > lines in a switch case that return -EINVAL if the interface is > completely deprecated later on, which is not a big problem. Agreed [1]. So what exactly are we waiting for? Acks from kvm maintainers, right? Alex [1] It'd probably end up being an ioctl that converts from one calling convention to another, resulting in maybe 5 lines in the switch case. -- 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
