From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51123) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uzm5G-0006KJ-Ky for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:09:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uzm5F-0007LY-64 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:09:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.eu.citrix.com ([46.33.159.39]:30576) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uzm5F-0007LK-08 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:09:17 -0400 From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20967.52442.308010.563288@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:09:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: <51E3BC9B.8080503@m2r.biz> References: <1373624555-4403-1-git-send-email-fabio.fantoni@m2r.biz> <51DFE351.4000102@eu.citrix.com> <51DFF83A.8030802@m2r.biz> <51E021B7.2050808@eu.citrix.com> <51E3BC9B.8080503@m2r.biz> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] libxl: usb2 and usb3 controller support for upstream qemu List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fabio Fantoni Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com, George Dunlap , wei.lui2@citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com Fabio Fantoni writes ("Re: [PATCH v3] libxl: usb2 and usb3 controller support for upstream qemu"): > Il 12/07/2013 17:33, George Dunlap ha scritto: > > On 12/07/13 13:36, Fabio Fantoni wrote: [someone wrote:] > >>> I'm just curious, why is this so complicated? Is this likely to be > >>> fragile and break in the future? ... > >> I tried already but there are problems with retrocompatibility: > >> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-07/msg00491.html > >> I was also asking if it is possible to remove some hardcoded options > >> without breaking something but I had no reply. > > > > So this seems to be a response to the first paragraph ("why is this so > > complicated, is it fragile"). I'm afraid that I don't think it's really a sufficient response to "why is this so complicated, is it fragile?". "I don't know" is not very convincing :-). My worry would be that these options would change their meaning in the future, or indeed that the whole edifice which requires callers to specify things at this excruciating level of detail might (sensibly!) be abolished. Ian. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] libxl: usb2 and usb3 controller support for upstream qemu Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:09:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20967.52442.308010.563288@mariner.uk.xensource.com> References: <1373624555-4403-1-git-send-email-fabio.fantoni@m2r.biz> <51DFE351.4000102@eu.citrix.com> <51DFF83A.8030802@m2r.biz> <51E021B7.2050808@eu.citrix.com> <51E3BC9B.8080503@m2r.biz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51E3BC9B.8080503@m2r.biz> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org To: Fabio Fantoni Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com, George Dunlap , wei.lui2@citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Fabio Fantoni writes ("Re: [PATCH v3] libxl: usb2 and usb3 controller support for upstream qemu"): > Il 12/07/2013 17:33, George Dunlap ha scritto: > > On 12/07/13 13:36, Fabio Fantoni wrote: [someone wrote:] > >>> I'm just curious, why is this so complicated? Is this likely to be > >>> fragile and break in the future? ... > >> I tried already but there are problems with retrocompatibility: > >> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-07/msg00491.html > >> I was also asking if it is possible to remove some hardcoded options > >> without breaking something but I had no reply. > > > > So this seems to be a response to the first paragraph ("why is this so > > complicated, is it fragile"). I'm afraid that I don't think it's really a sufficient response to "why is this so complicated, is it fragile?". "I don't know" is not very convincing :-). My worry would be that these options would change their meaning in the future, or indeed that the whole edifice which requires callers to specify things at this excruciating level of detail might (sensibly!) be abolished. Ian.