Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:37:43 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Roman Kiryanov <rkir@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] drivers: platform: goldfish:
 goldfish_address_space: add a driver
Message-ID: <20190129093743.GA20334@kroah.com>
References: <20190109021112.5836-1-rkir@google.com>
 <20190109021112.5836-2-rkir@google.com>
 <20190122110712.GA1004@kroah.com>
 <CAOGAQeo1Kv55EUn2sYPOt9EgBMfN=+o_A4KOPVgqbJHo+HN-Sw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOGAQeo1Kv55EUn2sYPOt9EgBMfN=+o_A4KOPVgqbJHo+HN-Sw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.2 (2019-01-07)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:32:12AM -0800, Roman Kiryanov wrote:
> > How does QEMU do this today?  There isn't a virtio or some other virtual
> > memory device that allows memory regions to be shared?  I can't believe
> > that there isn't one yet.  If not, then this should be some kind of
> > "generic" QEMU memory device, not a "goldfish" specific one, right?
> 
> I also thought this should not be something unique to us. So I asked
> in our internal mailing list, I heard nothing back.

As we have no idea who is on your internal mailing list, that's really
not a good representation :)

> > Please work with the QEMU developers on this, I need their ack before I
> > can take something like this.
> 
> This is a good point. I asked there (nothing since 1/24):
> 
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-discuss/2019-01/msg00055.html

less than a week is short :)

> When we were working on our device side, we had to change some QEMU
> code and later noticed that HAXM also requires some fixes (we had
> meetings with Intel). I suppose QEMU does not have this feature yet.
> 
> Could you please tell if we can proceed with upstreaming as is?

I told you what the requirements would be to get this merged in the
previous email, that has not changed.

thanks,

greg k-h