[Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for Mar 23

[Avi Kivity]

On 03/23/2010 01:13 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > The benefit would be that qemu-kvm.git would become a staging tree
> > instead of the master repository for kvm users.  As an example, we
> > wouldn't have any bisectability problems.  kvm features would need to be
> > written just once.
> >
> >      
> The last item would imply throwing away what qemu.git already cleaned up
> - or finally convert the rest. There is no lazy path.
>    

The code would remain but be disabled (#ifdef KVM_UPSTREAM) (just as 
with qemu-kvm.git).  The only difference is qemu.git would be usable for 
kvm users.

I'd prefer it if the cleanup happened out-of-tree and quickly.

> > > We are more than half-way through this, so let's focus efforts for the
> > > last bits that make the difference widely negligible. This investment
> > > should pay off rather quickly.
> > >
> > >        
> > If we merge now, we merge the half-completed effort so we don't lose
> > anything.  However, if we can complete the merge quickly, I'm all for
> > it.  I don't want to introduce the ugliness into qemu.git any more than
> > you do.
> >      
> One issue of merging blindly is the command line option zoo of qemu-kvm.
> I don't think we want this upstream first and then deprecate it quickly
> again.
>    

Good point.

> > Note, the above discussion ignores extboot and device assignment, but
> > let's focus on the thorny bits first.
> >
> >      
> I don't think extboot will make it upstream anymore, now that there is
> an effort for a gpxe-based virtio boot loader.
>    

Sure, an equivalent is fine.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function