[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/7] merge some xen bits into qemu
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. Yes, as the the intro text says. You've even quoted the paragraph here: > Gerd Hoffmann writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/7] merge some xen bits into > qemu"): >> The console and framebuffer backend drivers are largely based on the >> xen code, the other bits are rewritten from scratch. Nevertheless >> the code should be functionally identical. > > I'm afraid I'm still opposed to the approach you are taking here. > > The correct route for Xen support for qemu is via qemu-xen-unstable, > not directly into upstream qemu. There are *two* patch series for a reason. The one for upstream qemu, and the one for qemu-xen. After applying both patch sets to both threes they are largely identical. Anthony indicated that he wants to wait for the qemu-xen patches being accepted before merging the patches intended for upstream qemu. So where exactly is your problem? > If you want to generalise the backend driver machinery, which in > qemu-xen-unstable is used only for the framebuffer, you should submit > your generalised backend machinery on qemu-devel. Just done. > qemu-dm is hardly used for paravirtual domains so this is not really > very helpful. qemu-dm is not even used at all for most PV domains. It isn't mandatory. But every pv domain using the pv framebuffer needs qemu-dm. It also can be used to handle the console instead of xenconsoled. > Command-line differences are not very important in the grand scheme of > things but they too need to come through xen-devel so that there is a > sane transition. As noted in the intro text the qemu-xen patch series don't change the command line interface. I think it is easier to hash that out later separately and not involve xend changes in this patch series. > For the avoidance of any doubt, Gerd's machine types are for > _emulating_ a Xen environment on a machine without a real Xen > hypervisor. That is one long term goal, yes. And I want the same backend code being used for both emulation and xen support. This patchset is about xen support only. There are no emulation bits, they will come later. > Gerd: Why do I keep having to repeat this point ? Your messages > always obscure it. When submitting xen emulation patches I will clearly state that. > So in summary: Gerd, please post your suggestions to xen-devel only > and explain what the purpose of each patch is. Not involving qemu-devel here is wrong. Discussing patches for upstream qemu without involving the relevant people isn't going to work. Each patch comes with a description of the changes. > If their intended use is for a system with a real Xen hypervisor and > xend, and the patches makes sense, then we will of course take them. They are intended for a system with a Xen hypervisor. The disk & nic backends need some windup in xend to be usable though. > In any case, we do not want any huge upheavals in this area that are > not dealt with appropriately through the Xen testing and release > processes. We definitely don't want to have replacements of whole > swathes of our existing code appear in qemu upstream! The qemu-xen series is bisectable. You can take the patches one by one, run them through the test setup @ XenSource and complain loudly if I broke something. cheers, Gerd _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |