On Do, 2015-11-05 at 14:45 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 5 November 2015 at 14:42, Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Chicken & egg issue in that case because airlied (linux kernel drm > > maintainer) asked to have the qemu changes merged before taking the > > virtio-gpu pull request. So I had no other chance than creating the > > patches with not-yet upstream virtio header changes ... > > Hmm. If I'd realised that at the time I'd have pushed back on it. > We should never take code that relies on upstream kernel > ABI that hasn't been accepted by the maintainer yet.
The reason airlied asked for qemu being upstream first is to avoid having code in the kernel tree not accepted by qemu yet ... So, one of the two has to go first ;) When I did the pull requests patches had passed review on both qemu-devel (qemu side) and dri-devel (kernel side), so this was really just a formal "wait for qemu" thing with a very low risk of ABI changes, and airlied pulled it into drm-next only days after it landed in qemu/master. cheers, Gerd
