On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio >>> changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qemu, or should >>> it go (2), (1), (3)? >> >> 1. Informal discussion > > > Where? Is this lkml? There were a number of virtio changes recently > that never involved qemu-devel.
Theoretically, virtualizat...@lists.linux-foundation.org, if it still exists. Maybe we need a virtio list. qemu-devel@, kvm@, lkml could be copied. The point is that we can't drive virtio from either qemu or the kernel any more. The spec represents the "virtual hardware manufacturer", which qemu and linux/vhost (and others) emulate, and which linux (and others) write drivers for. > >> 2. Proposed spec patch, kernel change, qemu change >> 3. Buy-ins from spec maintainer, kernel driver maintainer, qemu device >> maintainer (only regarding the ABI, not the code) > > I don't think this is how it's working today. I would be happy with a > flow like this. If Michael and Rusty agree, we can adopt it immediately. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
