On 11/12/2010 06:14 AM, Ian Molton wrote: > 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? Yes, and they have to be split up into something reviewable. > >> 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? That would be fine. >> 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. Yes, qemu is where I was suggesting you post them. Regards, Anthony Liguori > -Ian _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
