Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: Add PCI memory BAR in addition to PIO BAR

[Anthony Liguori]

On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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, address@hidden, if it still
> exists.  Maybe we need a virtio list. qemu-devel@, kvm@, lkml could be
> copied.

Perhaps it's time to create a address@hidden  Just have a simple process that all 
spec changes to there the appropriate kernel, QEMU, virtio-win, or NKT 
maintainers can require any virtio change to also have a committed spec change 
first.

> 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.

Yup.  We need to be more rigorous about using the spec for that as we've not 
done a great job historically here.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> > > 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.