From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:29:37 +0300 Message-ID: <20120905152937.GF11058@redhat.com> References: <825e653c9cfe9d8e26185917cbe1f1dd7ae299e2.1346048917.git.jan.kiszka@web.de> <503B62F4.9070500@suse.de> <87k3wjyy0e.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <503E227B.40904@suse.de> <874nndmrjs.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Anthony Liguori , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Kardashevskiy , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , qemu-ppc To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64431 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753187Ab2IEP2V (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:28:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:26:54PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/05/2012 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> > >> Why? The way this is being submitted I don't see why we should treat > >> Jan's patch any different from a patch by IBM or Samsung where we've > >> asked folks to fix the license to comply with what I thought was our new > >> policy (it does not even contain a from-x-on-GPLv2+ notice). > > > > Asking is one thing. Requiring is another. > > > > I would prefer that people submitted GPLv2+, but I don't think it should > > be a hard requirement. It means, among other things, that we cannot > > accept most code that originates from the Linux kernel. > > We could extend this to "require unless there is a reason to grant an > exception" if we wanted to (not saying I know whether we want to or not). Would be nice to add a clarification in the header: people tend to copy boilerplate around. > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57901) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9HWj-0002tZ-Ht for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:28:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9HWc-0001J1-Vp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:28:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:29:37 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20120905152937.GF11058@redhat.com> References: <825e653c9cfe9d8e26185917cbe1f1dd7ae299e2.1346048917.git.jan.kiszka@web.de> <503B62F4.9070500@suse.de> <87k3wjyy0e.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <503E227B.40904@suse.de> <874nndmrjs.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Kardashevskiy , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , Anthony Liguori , qemu-ppc , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:26:54PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/05/2012 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> > >> Why? The way this is being submitted I don't see why we should treat > >> Jan's patch any different from a patch by IBM or Samsung where we've > >> asked folks to fix the license to comply with what I thought was our new > >> policy (it does not even contain a from-x-on-GPLv2+ notice). > > > > Asking is one thing. Requiring is another. > > > > I would prefer that people submitted GPLv2+, but I don't think it should > > be a hard requirement. It means, among other things, that we cannot > > accept most code that originates from the Linux kernel. > > We could extend this to "require unless there is a reason to grant an > exception" if we wanted to (not saying I know whether we want to or not). Would be nice to add a clarification in the header: people tend to copy boilerplate around. > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function