qemu-trivial
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11


From: Alexey Kardashevskiy
Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-headers: update to 3.11
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:16:43 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7

On 09/04/2013 01:35 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 03/09/2013 17:28, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>> On 09/03/2013 08:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2013-09-03 11:32, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>> On 09/03/2013 07:29 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>> On 3 September 2013 09:27, Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I need this update as VFIO on PPC64/pseries got in upstream kernel
>>>>>> and this is required by VFIO-SPAPR bits in QEMU. Others may find this
>>>>>> update useful too :)
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h       | 168 
>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>  linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h  |   1 +
>>>>>>  linux-headers/asm-mips/kvm.h        |  81 +++++++++--------
>>>>>>  linux-headers/linux/kvm.h           |   3 +
>>>>>>  linux-headers/linux/vfio.h          |  42 ++++++++-
>>>>>>  linux-headers/linux/virtio_config.h |   3 +
>>>>>>  6 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>>>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm.h
>>>>>>  create mode 100644 linux-headers/asm-arm64/kvm_para.h
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this should go in via the KVM tree, not trivial.
>>>>
>>>> I do not mind, it just went through the trivial tree last time, that's it.
>>>
>>> This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too
>>> often in this area.
>>
>> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken
>> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no?
>> This is a mechanical change, no more.
> 
> It's a matter of keeping things bisectable.  If we can detect a
> breakage, we can first work around it, and then apply the header update.
>  And if we don't detect it, maintainers usually send pull requests when
> they have time to work on breakage caused by their patches.


I can see the discussion but I do not see if anyone is going to pull this
through any tree. Please, somebody, pull. Thanks.


-- 
Alexey



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]