[kvmarm] [PATCH v5.1 0/2] KVM: ARM: Rename KVM_SET_DEVICE_ADDRESS

[Alexander Graf]

On 09.01.2013, at 23:34, Alexander Graf wrote:

> 
> On 09.01.2013, at 23:26, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2013 03:37:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 09.01.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> I get that there's a tradeoff between getting something in now, versus
>>>>> waiting until the API is more refined.  Tagging it with a particular ISA
>>>>> seems like an odd way of saying "soon to be deprecated", though.  What
>>>>> happens if we're still squabbling over the perfect replacement API when
>>>>> we're trying to push PPC MPIC stuff in?
>>>> 
>>>> Then we're the ones who have to come up with a good interface.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> How about another bad one, with PPC in the name, and some pleas to hurry
>>> things up? :-)
>>> 
>>> It's not as if there haven't been last-minute requests for API changes on
>>> the PPC side in the past...
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> This is getting out of hand.
>> 
>> Do you have another API for PPC, which was send for review and not
>> commented on several months ago that we can unify right now?
>> 
>> If not, let's go with the ARM name and work on the generic API in the mean time.
>> 
>> The end result will be something along 5 lines in a header files and 3
>> lines in a switch case that return -EINVAL if the interface is
>> completely deprecated later on, which is not a big problem.
> 
> Agreed [1].
> 
> So what exactly are we waiting for? Acks from kvm maintainers, right?

In fact, we should probably CC them :)


Alex