Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] Add socket/xnet libs to configure for Solaris

[Blue Swirl]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 13:14, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 27.03.2012 14:01, schrieb Lee Essen:
>> On 27/03/2012 12:31, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Am 27.03.2012 09:23, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 04:26:27PM +0000, Lee Essen wrote:
>>>>> libsocket and libxnet are required for base network functionality
>>>>> used in os_dep.c, qemu-socket.c, qga/commands-posix.c and cutils.c
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Essen<address@hidden>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   configure |    1 +
>>>>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>>>>> index 8b4e3c1..152adaa 100755
>>>>> --- a/configure
>>>>> +++ b/configure
>>>>> @@ -471,6 +471,7 @@ SunOS)
>>>>>     QEMU_CFLAGS="-D__EXTENSIONS__ $QEMU_CFLAGS"
>>>>>     QEMU_CFLAGS="-std=gnu99 $QEMU_CFLAGS"
>>>>>     LIBS="-lsocket -lnsl -lresolv $LIBS"
>>>>> +  libs_qga="-lsocket -lxnet $lib_qga"
>>>>
>>>> s/lib_qga/libs_qga/
>>>>
>>>> BTW this typo is also present in mingw32 libs_qga, I have sent a patch
>>>> to fix it.
>>>>
>>>> So -lxnet isn't required in plain old LIBS?
>>>
>>> It's a question of generation AFAIU, I didn't like it either. By using
>>> the old libs, then due to Solaris' backwards compatibility we are able
>>> to run them on older Solaris versions in theory. We should be using the
>>> same libs consistently in QEMU, and I don't like double-coding them.
>>> Those comments were not yet addressed, just as my suggested subject for
>>> the timer patch and the ordering of the patches was deliberately
>>> ignored. :/ Since my patience is limited, I plan to fix them up myself
>>> before applying them to my Solaris branch and sending a PULL.
>>
>> <rant>
>>
>> What?  I'm trying here ... I don't understand the ordering comment, your
>> suggestion was about putting more meaningful titles, I've tried to do that.
>>
>> Blimey ... this isn't my job, this is my own time ... I'm doing this
>> because I want to try to make things better and it feels like I'm having
>> to jump through ever decreasing hoops.
>>
>> I'm new to the whole git patch submission thing (as is obviously
>> apparent) ... so give me a break.
>>
>> And let's be clear here ... at the moment there is no support for
>> Solaris, there are countless fundamental fixes that need to go in before
>> it will even get close ... let alone thinking about kvm.
>>
>> I've tried very hard not to break any other platform, but still I can't
>> even get a single thing applied.
>>
>> </rant>
>>
>> Ok, since I'm obviously incapable of providing patches in the right
>> form, let me know if I can help in any other way. For now I will just
>> maintain a separate tree.
>
> Sorry if this was harsh for you, you have indeed been trying and
> improving things, but my issue is this:
>
> <rant>
>
> Apart from the C99 patch that has been committed now, QEMU has been
> working fine for me as inofficial maintainer of Solaris host support.

Unofficial maintainer?
git log --format="%aN: %s" | grep -i solaris
tells a different story. But please propose yourself as the official
maintainer, for example I'm no longer interested in Solaris and the
other Solaris patch submitters have also stopped contributing.

> KVM was never supported on illumos in upstream QEMU and it's not even in
> upstream KVM AFAIK. It might even never be merged due to licensing
> issues. So this is a new, optional feature and not a breakage.
>
> Yet you keep pushing for this. You send patches on Friday afternoon and
> on Monday noon do a slightly improved repost. This is my job now and I
> do not work on it every weekend. I would rather see you not rush things
> so much and put more emphasis on quality of submission and investigation
> of why, what and how.
> People like you have occasionally appeared out of nowhere, submitted a
> few patches and left again, leaving two hands full of core contributors
> with the code. So it must be easily maintainable for us.
>
> Especially code that does #if oneplatform||anotherplatform is really bad
> because it will mean that someone else will soon come and want to add
> ||thirdplatform.
>
> My main point however is that you keep sending patches in an
> egocentrical rather than maintainer-centric way, which we have already
> discussed recently with David for pseries. I would've preferred that you
> not send everything *you* need for your goal of SmartOS support in one
> large series, but a patch to Paolo about qemu-timer (and I was serious
> about the prefix notation, there's many good example on the list and I
> made it really easy for you to just copy&paste) that I could just ack
> and maybe apply through qemu-trivial, a patch about the KVM stuff that
> Jan/Marcello et al. could handle, and qemu-ga in a small series that
> Michael could handle and I would ack (qemu-ga being unneeded for most
> use cases, easy to disable and therefore even less inconvenient than our
> broken Darwin host support).
>
> Your saying that you will maintain this in a separate tree now shows me
> even more that you have not yet understood what the problem with your
> submissions is that I have been trying to guide you to tackle. Maybe
> someone else can explain better, e.g. on IRC where some of the
> discussions would be much easier to conduct.
>
> </rant>
>
> Andreas