On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 13:14, Andreas Färber <andreas.faer...@web.de> 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<lee.es...@nowonline.co.uk> >>>>> --- >>>>> 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
