On 09.01.2013, at 23:34, Alexander Graf wrote: > > 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? In fact, we should probably CC them :) Alex -- 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
