Subject: [PATCH v5 01/12] KVM: ARM: IntroduceKVM_SET_DEVICE_ADDRESS ioctl

From: [email-masked] (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:50:11 +0100

On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:28:03 +0100, Alexander Graf <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On 09.01.2013, at 16:22, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:11:39 +0000, Peter Maydell
>> <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 9 January 2013 14:58, Alexander Graf <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, that was the basic idea. Considering that the patch set hasn't
>>>> been going
>>>> in for another 2 months after that discussion indicates that this
isn't
>>>> too much of
>>>> an issue though :).
>>> 
>>> We might get there faster if people didn't keep nitpicking the APIs at
>> the
>>> last minute :-)
>> 
>> Exactly. We're trying hard to get the damned thing merged, and the
>> permanent API churn quickly becomes a burden.
> 
> As I said earlier, we have had a lot of experience in creating really
bad
> APIs in the past.

Is this one really bad? Again, what changed in the meantime that makes you
think this API is wrong?

> But how about making this one specific? Call it
KVM_ARM_SET_VGIC_ADDRESS,
> keep the rest as it is, resend it, and later we can come up with an
> actually generic interface.

Let's pretend you never wrote that, shall we? ;-)

        M.
-- 
Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick two.