Amit Shah wrote: > On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [09:21:13], Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Amit Shah wrote: >> >>> Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging >>> the two drivers? >>> >>> >> Because they do the same thing. I'm not going to constantly rehash >> this. It's been explained multiple times. >> > > It hardly looks like the same thing each passing day. >
That's BS. The very first time you posted, you received the same feedback from both Paul and I. See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/44778. That was back in June. You've consistently received the same feedback both on the ML and in private. > We're ending up having to compromise on the performance or functionality > or simplicity the devices just because of this restriction. > This is _not_ a high performance device and there so far has been no functionality impact. I don't understand why you keep dragging your feet about this. It's very simple, if you post a functional set of patches for a converged virtio-console driver, we'll merge it. If you keep arguing about having a separate virtio-serial driver, it's not going to get merged. I don't know how to be more clear than this. >> If there are implementation issues within the Linux drivers because of >> peculiarities of hvc then hvc needs to be fixed. It has nothing to do >> with the driver ABI which is what qemu cares about. >> > > I'd welcome that effort as well. But we all know that's not going to > happen anytime soon. > That is not a justification to add a new device in QEMU. If we add a new device everytime we encounter a less than ideal interface within a guest, we're going to end up having hundreds of devices. Regards, Anthony Liguori _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
