Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment

[Anthony Liguori]

Andreas Färber <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 28.08.2012 14:57, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> Andreas Färber <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am 27.08.2012 08:28, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <address@hidden>
>>>>
>>>> This adds PCI device assignment for i386 targets using the classic KVM
>>>> interfaces. This version is 100% identical to what is being maintained
>>>> in qemu-kvm for several years and is supported by libvirt as well. It is
>>>> expected to remain relevant for another couple of years until kernels
>>>> without full-features and performance-wise equivalent VFIO support are
>>>> obsolete.
>>>>
>>>> A refactoring to-do that should be done in-tree is to model MSI and
>>>> MSI-X support via the generic PCI layer, similar to what VFIO is already
>>>> doing for MSI-X. This should improve the correctness and clean up the
>>>> code from duplicate logic.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>  hw/kvm/Makefile.objs |    2 +-
>>>>  hw/kvm/pci-assign.c  | 1929 
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  2 files changed, 1930 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>  create mode 100644 hw/kvm/pci-assign.c
>>> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/hw/kvm/pci-assign.c b/hw/kvm/pci-assign.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..9cce02c
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/hw/kvm/pci-assign.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,1929 @@
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2007, Neocleus Corporation.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>>>> + * under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License,
>>>> + * version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>
>>> The downside of accepting this into qemu.git is that it gets us a huge
>>> blob of GPLv2-only code without history of contributors for GPLv2+
>>> relicensing...
>> 
>> That is 100% okay.
>
> Why? The way this is being submitted I don't see why we should treat
> Jan's patch any different from a patch by IBM or Samsung where we've
> asked folks to fix the license to comply with what I thought was our new
> policy (it does not even contain a from-x-on-GPLv2+ notice).

Asking is one thing.  Requiring is another.

I would prefer that people submitted GPLv2+, but I don't think it should
be a hard requirement.  It means, among other things, that we cannot
accept most code that originates from the Linux kernel.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori