On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:29:19 +0200 David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 27.09.24 20:20, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:09:27 +0200 > > David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >>> Anyway, if we want to proceed with the gitlab project, would it make > >>> sense to create an org for it, so that it doesn't look like David's > >>> personal project? > > > > Frankly, I would prefer making Documentation/virt/kvm/s390/s390-diag.rst > > the authoritative documentation on DIAGs. > > > > My train of thought is DIAG 500 is a KVM thing, and KVM is a linux > > kernel thing, so it just feels right for the documentatio to > > live within the linux source tree. > > QEMU/TCG is the proof that KVM is not necessarily involved. > > Are you sure that no other OS out there besides Linux implements virtio > on s390x, or would want to implement it? :) > As Christian has pointed out in another thread DIAG 500 is documented as the KVM hypervisor call, and that made me argue it is a KVM thing. You are right KVM is not necessarily involved, and neither is QEMU. For me it is not about the components involved in the visualization, but about the people, projects and governance. IMHO this is basically extending the s390 architecture. We are guaranteed to not collide with the Architecture because DIAG 500 is reserved for KVM as a project I guess. > > > > I may have missed some of the discussion: what were the benefits > > of having this in its separate project/repository? > > Having it independent of the implementation. > 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. 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. Regards, Halil
