[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers
From: |
Alexander Graf |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:53:31 +0100 |
On 11.01.2012, at 20:52, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 01:48 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-11 20:46, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11.01.2012, at 20:41, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/11/2012 01:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to see us avoiding this in the future. Headers update
>>>>>>> patches should mention the source and should not be merged until the ABI
>>>>>>> changes actually made it at least into kvm.git. Same applies, of course,
>>>>>>> to the functional changes related to that ABI. Otherwise we risk quite
>>>>>>> some mess on everyone's side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another thing: KVM_CAP_PPC_HIOR has been removed again from the kernel
>>>>>>> and also the header. Is there real free space now or will the cap
>>>>>>> reappear? If there should better be a placeholder, let's add it (to the
>>>>>>> kernel).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will reappear with ONE_REG semantics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then please clean up now so that update-linux-headers.sh can be used
>>>>> again by "normal" developers. :)
>>>>
>>>> Before we did submodules and had a responsive BIOS maintainer, we
>>>> maintained patches within qemu.git for our external dependencies. I think
>>>> that's a good strategy here too. It's a little painful, but not entirely
>>>> awful.
>>>>
>>>> At least it makes it possible for you to (hopefully) trivial rebase a
>>>> patch if something is still in limbo.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that works. I can easily script that part. It doesn't solve the
>>> actual underlying problem though that we don't know when the abi is
>>> actually stable. I'm slowly starting to understand Pekka ;).
>>
>> IIRC, we never had this problem with qemu-kvm - as the merges were
>> coordinated with the kernel (subsystem) tree.
>
> Are you suggesting that kvm header updates go through uq/master? That seems
> reasonable to me and is certainly the least amount of change.
So how about code that actually leverages the new headers?
Alex
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Alexander Graf, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Jan Kiszka, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Anthony Liguori, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Alexander Graf, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Jan Kiszka, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Anthony Liguori, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers,
Alexander Graf <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Anthony Liguori, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Alexander Graf, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Anthony Liguori, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Alexander Graf, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Avi Kivity, 2012/01/12
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Jan Kiszka, 2012/01/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] State of KVM bits in linux-headers, Gleb Natapov, 2012/01/12
[Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH] Update linux headers against kvm.git, Jan Kiszka, 2012/01/11