[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/7] merge some xen bits into qemu

Hi Ian,

Ian Jackson wrote:
People unfamiliar with the context should note that Gerd's submission
is NOT `merging some Xen bits into qemu'.  The code that Gerd is
submitting is VERY SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT from the code which exists
in the Xen version of qemu.

Here's how I see things:

Gerd has implemented an alternative userspace for Xen PV guests all based on QEMU. The code is well structured and integrates into QEMU in a nice way. On technical merits alone, I have a hard time not merging it into QEMU.

It's not Xend/blktap and while you all haven't been clear on this point, I don't think there's any chance that Xen.org or whatever your formal body is will ever bless this approach.

Naturally, this alternative userspace fits well for something like Xenner which emulates a Xen PV guest in QEMU or KVM. This is also something that I don't think Xen.org will ever bless.

Gerd has posted this series on xen-devel and there hasn't been any real substantial feedback. He's been pretty patient about it. I think this is somewhat misleading because I don't think there's any chance these patches will ever be pulled into xen-unstable. And BTW, any code that has a remote chance of being merged into QEMU eventually should be cross-posted on qemu-devel. Developing on xen-devel and then dropping a big pile of crud onto qemu-devel is not a viable development style. The same is true for other QEMU forks like KVM.

All this said, I don't think we should just pull in Gerd's patches as-is and forget about the Xen.org blessing. I want to encourage all of the work that's being done in xen-unstable to be merged back into QEMU upstream and that would certainly discourage this process.

So at this point, I think we need some clarification. Ian, if you have no intention of ever merging these patches in any form, I think you should be clear about that.

Gerd, I think you need to restructure your patches to do two things. The first is to never mention the name "Xen" as it's trademarked and owned by Xen.org. There should be no confusion that this functionality is in anyway endorsed or supported by Xen.org. The second thing is that whatever you do has to get easily out of the way of anything that's in xen-unstable. It should cause no merging pain to Ian. It should also be relatively easy to exclude from the build. If you just keep everything as separate files as you are, then it's just a matter of not compiling them in.

I hope this will make everyone happy and we can stop posting this series and arguing about it. Does anyone have any objections to this?


Anthony Liguori

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.