Re: [Qemu-devel] New targets (was: [PATCH] qapi-schema.json: Reformat TargetType enum to one-per-line)
Am 22.05.2013 16:28, schrieb Anthony Liguori: Andreas Färber afaer...@suse.de writes: More common is however that people start writing a new target and don't submit it yet (ahem!) while another target gets added, and the current form of rebreaking this block of enum values causes more conflicts Sounds like a good reason to submit the target upstream to me... So are incompletely implemented targets (wrt instruction set) eligible for upstream these days? I thought they'd need to be able to run at least some small image successfully, preferably Linux where possible. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
Re: [Qemu-devel] New targets (was: [PATCH] qapi-schema.json: Reformat TargetType enum to one-per-line)
Andreas Färber afaer...@suse.de writes: Am 22.05.2013 16:28, schrieb Anthony Liguori: Andreas Färber afaer...@suse.de writes: More common is however that people start writing a new target and don't submit it yet (ahem!) while another target gets added, and the current form of rebreaking this block of enum values causes more conflicts Sounds like a good reason to submit the target upstream to me... So are incompletely implemented targets (wrt instruction set) eligible for upstream these days? Aren't most of our target incomplete by some standard? I thought the typical approach for a target was to get linux-user working first, and then go for softmmu. As long as linux-user can run application, I think it's fair game for merging. I thought they'd need to be able to run at least some small image successfully, preferably Linux where possible. I think that's far too high of a hurdle. Regards, Anthony Liguori Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
Re: [Qemu-devel] New targets (was: [PATCH] qapi-schema.json: Reformat TargetType enum to one-per-line)
On 22 May 2013 15:48, Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com wrote: Andreas Färber afaer...@suse.de writes: Am 22.05.2013 16:28, schrieb Anthony Liguori: So are incompletely implemented targets (wrt instruction set) eligible for upstream these days? Aren't most of our target incomplete by some standard? I thought the typical approach for a target was to get linux-user working first, and then go for softmmu. As long as linux-user can run application, I think it's fair game for merging. I thought they'd need to be able to run at least some small image successfully, preferably Linux where possible. I think that's far too high of a hurdle. I think the bar should probably be at about either can run some plausible set of Linux binaries in user mode, or can run some softmmu image (eg linux with a minimal config, whichever the target submitter prefers. Basically something plausibly useful to somebody other than the developer. thanks -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] New targets (was: [PATCH] qapi-schema.json: Reformat TargetType enum to one-per-line)
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes: On 22 May 2013 15:48, Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com wrote: Andreas Färber afaer...@suse.de writes: Am 22.05.2013 16:28, schrieb Anthony Liguori: So are incompletely implemented targets (wrt instruction set) eligible for upstream these days? Aren't most of our target incomplete by some standard? I thought the typical approach for a target was to get linux-user working first, and then go for softmmu. As long as linux-user can run application, I think it's fair game for merging. I thought they'd need to be able to run at least some small image successfully, preferably Linux where possible. I think that's far too high of a hurdle. I think the bar should probably be at about either can run some plausible set of Linux binaries in user mode, or can run some softmmu image (eg linux with a minimal config, whichever the target submitter prefers. Basically something plausibly useful to somebody other than the developer. Another way to put this, and this is true for *all* contributions, is that the bar for acceptance is whether something is useful even if the submitter immediately stopped contributing after the patch was merged. Regards, Anthony Liguori thanks -- PMM
