Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:51 am Greg KH wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:42:54AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: >>> I really don't want the SR-IOV stuff to sit out another merge cycle >>> though... Arg. >> Why, is there some rush to get it in? As there is no in-kernel users of >> it, I don't see the problem with postponing it until someone actually >> needs it. > > Well it *does* make development of SR-IOV drivers that much harder. As you > know, out of tree development is a pain. OTOH if any changes end up being > required, they can be done before the code is merged. Yes, people write to me asking for the SR-IOV patch or update everyday -- I guess they don't want to let their competitors know they are working on it so they can't bring their questions up on the mailing list. And I personally also have dozen of other patches related to PCI and KVM subsystems which depend on the SR-IOV change. > Anyway, hopefully we won't have to worry about it because some driver will > come along soon that uses Yu's code. :) If not, Yu might have to maintain a > separate git tree or something until the drivers are ready to be merged. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
