On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:39 PM Felipe Franciosi <fel...@nutanix.com> wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2020, at 10:30 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote:> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 10:14:23AM +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > >>> On Sep 30, 2020, at 3:24 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 09:21:54AM -0700, John G Johnson wrote: > >>>>> On Sep 29, 2020, at 3:37 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:58:37AM +0000, Thanos Makatos wrote: > Per Daniel's response on the other fork of the thread, I think we can > develop faster if we're not depending on qemu-devel. With the right > set of maintainers on the project, there's arguably more flexibility > in working at a restricted set of code. QEMU can then update the > submodule when a "checkpoint" is ready.
Sure, if you are happy with the submodule approach that's great. On the QEMU side the device name should have an "x-" prefix so it's clear that the feature is experimental and subject to change. This way there is no stability guarantee during development. Both the protocol and command-line can be changed without introducing feature bits and keeping backwards compatibility. Stefan
