|
From: | Anthony Liguori |
Subject: | [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for Mar 23 |
Date: | Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:45:47 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0 |
On 03/23/2010 04:52 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/23/2010 11:31 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:Chris Wright wrote:Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.Yes, usability is a valid topic esp. if you promise to come w/ GUI patches.- state and roadmap for upstream merge of in-kernel device models (looks to me like this central merge effort is stalled ATM)- alternative path of merging qemu-kvm.git's implementation as is and cleaning it up in qemu.git.For kvm.git, I wouldn't dream of merging something with outstanding issues and cleaning them up "later", but the situation is somewhat different with qemu vs qemu-kvm.
I don't think we can pull in: - extboot - ia64 - in-kernel pit[1] - associated command line options - device passthroughThe question is, if we dropped those things, would people actually use qemu.git instead of qemu-kvm.git. If the answer is "no", what set of things do we need in order for people to focus on qemu.git instead of qemu-kvm.git.
[1] I'd like to revisit this discussion. We originally went the in-kernel pit route because of difficulties changing qemu. That's a bad reason to put something in the kernel. I'd prefer to see us fix qemu. After that, we can look at in-kernel pit and see if there are any remaining advantages (like performance). If it's significant, we can still merge in-kernel pit.
Regards, Anthony Liguori
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |