On 10/11/10 17:47, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 11/10/2010 11:22 AM, Ian Molton wrote: >> Ping ? > > I think the best way forward is to post patches. I posted links to the git trees. I can post patches, but they are *large*. Do you really want me to post them? > To summarize what I was trying to express in the thread, I think this is > not the right long term architecture but am not opposed to it as a short > term solution. I think having a new virtio device is a bad design choice > but am not totally opposed to it. Ok! (I agree (that this should be a short term solution) :) ) > you want to go for the path of integration, you're going to have to fix > all of the coding style issues and make the code fit into QEMU. Dropping > a bunch of junk into target-i386/ is not making the code fit into QEMU. I agree. how about hw/gl for the renderer and hw/ for the virtio module? > If you post just what you have now in patch form, I can try to provide > more concrete advice ignoring the coding style problems. I can post patches, although I dont think LKML would appreciate the volume! I can post them to the qemu list if you do. -Ian _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
