| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-merge
RE: [Xen-merge] FW: vmware's virtual machine interface
--Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote (on Tuesday, August 09, 2005
00:40:40 +0100):
>
>> > As regards the VMI proposal itself, I don't think I can
>> forward it, so
>> > if you don't have it you'd better ask Pratap Subrahmanyam
>> > [pratap@xxxxxxxxxx] for it directly.
>>
>> FWIW i agree with most of your points.
>
> That's reassuring -thanks.
>
> I think the VMI approach looks quite seductive from Andrew/Linus's point
> of view, so there's a real chance we could be stuck with it unless we
> push back with our own patches soon...
The good thing about starting this sort of debates (from the point of
view of the above concern) is that what tends to happen is neither
gets merged until we come to a consensus. On the downside, that's a
total PITA from the point of view of maintaining the stack out of
tree.
Is probably best if we play nice, and get each other to agree on the
cleanup type stuff from both sides. Zach does seem to understand
the need for higher level stuff, even if it's not implemented yet.
My main concern is that we spend weeks refactoring this stuff, and
then it all gets rejected ... that's not helping anything. If we
do it piece at a time, we should be able to have a rational discussion.
M.
_______________________________________________
Xen-merge mailing list
Xen-merge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge
|
|
|
| |
|
Home