qemu-s390x
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v1 00/14] s390x: virtio-mem support


From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/14] s390x: virtio-mem support
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 14:23:35 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 02.10.24 11:04, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 10/1/24 10:54 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 30.09.24 23:49, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:29:19 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:

On 27.09.24 20:20, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:09:27 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:

[...]

That is a valid point. But IMHO the benefit of having this independent,
does not justify the churn of having a separate project with its
own governance, and communication infrastructure. And I suppose for an
open(?) specification, one would need those things.

I don't see the need to bring in all that bureaucracy. The original idea
was simple: if QEMU/TCG or QEMU/KVM implement a hypercall (IOW: it was
acked by the s390x maintainers), we document it somewhere.

Implementing something in QEMU and then modifying a KVM document in the
kernel tree sounded odd.

It is a valid question to ask: what if any other hypervisor
(cloud-hypervisor etc.) would want to implement a custom diag500
hypercall, and who would ack it. But I don't really think that we would
have to sort this out this at this point in time.


No strong opinions though. If Christian, Janosch and Claudio are in
favor of a separate "Specifications for open-source virtualization on
s390x (IBM z Systems)" project, I'm fine with it as well.

I'm more than happy if we don't need that. As said, I'm happy to
document wherever people tell me to document.

4 years ago we thought that having a separate repository was a good
idea, maybe it is no longer. In that case, s390x mainters please let me
know what to do :)


I'd like to at least have a partial documentation in the kernel if not a
full one. You can add a link to your repo to that.

Makes sense.


Even if they go out of sync I'd rather have documentation where I'd
expect it (Linux) than only the repo. IMHO duplication isn't a gigantic
issue here.

Agreed.


We also have an internal space where KVM architecture is being stored
(currently a handful of documents) and we'll store it there as well,
including a link to the repo.

Perfect. If there is a way to enable that repository, that would be great. For the time being I'll document it there as well.

Thanks!

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]