Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.9 Development Update

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 09/12/2016 19:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/12/16 19:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > > On 12/09/2016 03:57 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:57:04PM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > Should we have a section on new PV drivers? If so, I suggest to add:
> > > > > > > - Xen transport for 9pfs
> > > > > > > - PV Calls
> > > > > > Good idea. We could also include DRM and PV Sound (CC Oleksandr).
> > > > > This is a great idea. Let me explain what we have and what the direction
> > > > > is:
> > > > > 1. Frontends which we already have, working, but need to refactor/cleanup:
> > > > > 1.1. PV sound
> > > > > 1.2. PV DRM
> > > > > 1.3. DISPL protocol, I will push v1 for review right after sndif done
> > > > > 1.3. PV DRM mapper (Dom0 generic DRM driver to implement DRM zero copy
> > > > > via DRM Prime buffer sharing)
> > > > > 1.4. PV events not done, but we are considering [1]. If it fits and
> > > > > is maintained,
> > > > > then we'll probably stick to it, otherwise new PV will be created
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Backends, for the above frontends already implemented:
> > > > > 2.1. A unified library for Xen backends (libxenbe)
> > > > > 2.2. DRM + Wayland
> > > > > 2.3. ALSA
> > > > > 2.4. Events not implemented yet
> > > > >
> > > > > All the above sources are available on *public* Github repos
> > > > > (I can provide links on request) and the intention is to
> > > > > upstream.
> > > > Please do post the links..
> > > Please note these are all WIP:
> > > 1. Frontends
> > > https://github.com/andr2000?tab=repositories
> > > 2. Backends
> > > https://github.com/al1img?tab=repositories
> > Now, I don't want to sound pessimistic, but I thought I was being
> > audacious when I wrote both PV Calls and 9pfs for 4.9 - do you really
> > think it is feasable to complete upstreaming of PV sound, PV DRM, DISPL,
> > PV DRM frontends and backends, all by April? I would probably reduce the
> > list a bit.
> I think it would be good to main two lists.  One of "the stuff people
> are working on overall", and "the subset of it intended/expected for the
> forthcoming release".
>
> Stuff will invariably slip, but even if the work isn't intended for the
> forthcoming release, it it still useful to see if anyone in the
> community is working on a related topic.
I am thinking to re-introduce the state of a series (none, fair, ok, 
good, done) as it was done in the past [1].
"The states are: none -> fair -> ok -> good -> done

none - nothing yet
fair - still working on it, patches are prototypes or RFC
ok   - patches posted, acting on review
good - some last minute pieces
done - all done, might have bugs"

Also, rather than having two separate lists as you suggested, I would 
combine the two and differentiate the items planned for next release 
with a tag (let's say [next]).
Any opinions?

[1] 
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-02/msg01816.html
--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel