On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:08:04AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> The patch has been in circulation for weeks, is well tested/reviewed
> (and I hope its considered well written), and I want to get on with my
> life ;).
Hey, I feel your pain, I've been reviewing these ..
> Your proposal doesn't change the user->kern ABI, so any
> consolidation will be just an internal change to the kernel code only.
> People can start using the interface today to build things, and we can
> fix up the internal code later once your proposals have had a chance to
> be shaped after review, etc (which I know from experience can take a
> while and change radically though the course ;).
>
> IOW: The only thing waiting does is hide the history of the edit, since
> whatever change is proposed is invariably the same amount of work for me
> to convert it over. Its purely a question of whether its folded into
> the history or visible as two change records. Based on that. I don't
> see any problem with it just going in now. Its certainly ready from my
> perspective.
>
> So I guess the question is: What's your objection?
No objections, only comments ;)
> (BTW: I am talking about the yet unpublished "v9" which addresses all
> your other comments sans the io_bus interface changes.
I thought we agreed on the io_bus approach. What changed?
> Will push out
> later today)
BTW, is the group removal race handled there somehow?
Here's what I have in mind:
kvm does
lock
dev = find
unlock
<---------- at this point group device is removed
write access to device that has been removed
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
