From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Blue Swirl Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 07:54:23 +0000 Message-ID: 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> <87wr081nq4.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <87zk54l1fd.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <959ADF01-7A40-4786-BCEA-CD4AB4AF2DF0@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Anthony Liguori , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , Avi Kivity , qemu-ppc , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:35095 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751540Ab2IHHyo (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Sep 2012 03:54:44 -0400 Received: by iahk25 with SMTP id k25so280119iah.19 for ; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 00:54:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <959ADF01-7A40-4786-BCEA-CD4AB4AF2DF0@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 05.09.2012, at 15:38, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> Blue Swirl writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>> Avi Kivity writes: >>>>> >>>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>>> I don't want QEMU to be GPLv3. I don't like the terms of the GPLv3. >>>>> >>>>> I don't mind GPLv2+, if people want to share code from QEMU in GPLv3 >>>>> projects, GPLv2+ enables that. >>>> >>>> The advantage of 100% GPLv2+ (or other GPLv3 compatible) would be that >>>> QEMU could share code from GPLv3 projects, specifically latest >>>> binutils. Reinventing a disassembler for ever growing x86 assembly is >>>> no fun. >>> >>> But we can't share code with Linux (like for virtio). >> >> It's a tradeoff between reimplementing disassembler without using >> binutils vs. reimplementing virtio without using Linux. Both have >> their problems and both are growing areas. Disassembler is a bit >> smaller and the basic function does not ever change. >> >>> >>> Yes, the GPLv3 sucks and FSF screwed up massively not making it v2 >>> compatible. >> >> I sort of agree. They had their reasons, of course. Too bad binutils >> licensing is fully controlled by FSF, for us it would be enough if >> they had some sort of dual licensing scheme (GPLv3 + BSD for example) >> in place. > > What do the BSD guys do here? They want to have a disassembler too that works across all different sorts of architectures, no? There's at least GDB and DDD. The DDB kernel debugger contains a disassembler for several architectures: http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/ident?v=NETBSD&i=db_disasm At least cris, lm32, microblaze, unicore32 and s390x are still missing and I don't know if sh3 equals sh4. For some of those, maybe current code from old binutils will be good enough forever. It looks like the most recent change for x86 is from 2009 and there's no support for even MMX so it does not look very potential way to handle the x86 instruction set growth. > > > Alex > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42275) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TAFsN-0000Tm-9E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 03:54:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TAFsL-0001DH-St for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 03:54:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <959ADF01-7A40-4786-BCEA-CD4AB4AF2DF0@suse.de> 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> <87wr081nq4.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <87zk54l1fd.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <959ADF01-7A40-4786-BCEA-CD4AB4AF2DF0@suse.de> From: Blue Swirl Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 07:54:23 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , Avi Kivity , Anthony Liguori , qemu-ppc , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 05.09.2012, at 15:38, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> Blue Swirl writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>> Avi Kivity writes: >>>>> >>>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>>> I don't want QEMU to be GPLv3. I don't like the terms of the GPLv3. >>>>> >>>>> I don't mind GPLv2+, if people want to share code from QEMU in GPLv3 >>>>> projects, GPLv2+ enables that. >>>> >>>> The advantage of 100% GPLv2+ (or other GPLv3 compatible) would be that >>>> QEMU could share code from GPLv3 projects, specifically latest >>>> binutils. Reinventing a disassembler for ever growing x86 assembly is >>>> no fun. >>> >>> But we can't share code with Linux (like for virtio). >> >> It's a tradeoff between reimplementing disassembler without using >> binutils vs. reimplementing virtio without using Linux. Both have >> their problems and both are growing areas. Disassembler is a bit >> smaller and the basic function does not ever change. >> >>> >>> Yes, the GPLv3 sucks and FSF screwed up massively not making it v2 >>> compatible. >> >> I sort of agree. They had their reasons, of course. Too bad binutils >> licensing is fully controlled by FSF, for us it would be enough if >> they had some sort of dual licensing scheme (GPLv3 + BSD for example) >> in place. > > What do the BSD guys do here? They want to have a disassembler too that works across all different sorts of architectures, no? There's at least GDB and DDD. The DDB kernel debugger contains a disassembler for several architectures: http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/ident?v=NETBSD&i=db_disasm At least cris, lm32, microblaze, unicore32 and s390x are still missing and I don't know if sh3 equals sh4. For some of those, maybe current code from old binutils will be good enough forever. It looks like the most recent change for x86 is from 2009 and there's no support for even MMX so it does not look very potential way to handle the x86 instruction set growth. > > > Alex >