Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 13/13] xen: pv domain builder.

[Ian Jackson]

Gerd Hoffmann writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 13/13] xen: pv domain builder."):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > These kind of patches are rather troublesome I'm afraid.
> > 
> > However in practice these changes are going to make it harder to merge
> > the existing Xen code, because they do some but not all of the same
> > things in a different way.  If these patches are merged into qemu
> > upstream then I'll have to do a lot of untangling.
>
> If the patches break something, report it and I'll fix it up.
> "I'm afraid something might break" doesn't help us going forward.

What I meant is that if your changes are committed to qemu upstream, I
will get an enormous pile of merge conflicts when I try to merge from
upstream into our tree.  The correct route, for changes which touch
code currently only in qemu-xen, is via qemu-xen.

If what you meant is that we should replace our tree with your tree
and then complain to you about anything that breaks: sorry, that's not
going to happen.

> > What I would prefer is if Gerd would submit a patch or patches to
> > xen-devel, against our qemu, to factor out of the functionality needed
> > by his code.  This should be done in a way that is both suitable for
> > his needs and structurally sensible for the xen upstream tree.
> 
> http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/patches/qemu-xen/

Those patches are not suitable for inclusion in qemu-xen.  This is
because
  - They rename files pointlessly
  - They contain many changes which consist of the addition of new
    code which is not relevant for qemu-xen.  It is fine for us to
    change qemu-xen to make it easier for your tree and our tree to
    converge (such as factoring the backend driver core out of the
    qemu-xen xenfb).  But we do not want (for example) your complete
    backend driver set.  This is why this needs to be done in the
    stages I outlined above
  - http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/patches/qemu-xen/0001-kraxel-s-stuff.patch
    "Kraxel's Stuff" ?  This is a joke, right ?
  etc.

This has been explained before, I think ?

Ian.