From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755216AbZB1Szb (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:55:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752612AbZB1SzY (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:55:24 -0500 Received: from zeus.pimb.org ([80.68.88.21]:34414 "EHLO zeus.pimb.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752574AbZB1SzY (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:55:24 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 2437 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:55:23 EST Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:11:15 +0000 From: Jody Belka To: Nick Piggin Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Xen-devel , Andrew Morton , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support Message-ID: <20090228181115.GU2056@pimb.org> References: <1235786365-17744-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090227212812.26d02f34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <49A8DF28.4050301@goop.org> <200902282309.07576.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200902282309.07576.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:09:07PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Saturday 28 February 2009 17:52:24 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > I hate to be the one to say it, but we should sit down and work out > > > whether it is justifiable to merge any of this into Linux. I think > > > it's still the case that the Xen technology is the "old" way and that > > > the world is moving off in the "new" direction, KVM? > > > > I don't think that's a particularly useful way to look at it. They're > > different approaches to the problem, and have different tradeoffs. > > > > The more important question is: are there real users for this stuff? > > Does not merging it cause more net disadvantage than merging it? > > Despite all the noise made about kvm in kernel circles, Xen has a large > > and growing installed base. At the moment its all running on massive > > out-of-tree patches, which doesn't make anyone happy. It's best that it > > be in the mainline kernel. You know, like we argue for everything else. > > OTOH, there are good reasons not to duplicate functionality, and many > many times throughout the kernel history competing solutions have been > rejected even though the same arguments could be made about them. Is it duplication though? I personally have machines with older processors that don't have hvm support. I plan on keeping these around for a good amount of time, and would love to be running them on mainline. So for me, unless KVM is somehow going to support para-virtualisation, this isn't duplication. Just my own personal viewpoint as a user of xen. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jody Belka Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:11:15 +0000 Message-ID: <20090228181115.GU2056@pimb.org> References: <1235786365-17744-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090227212812.26d02f34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <49A8DF28.4050301@goop.org> <200902282309.07576.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200902282309.07576.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Nick Piggin Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Xen-devel , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:09:07PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Saturday 28 February 2009 17:52:24 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > I hate to be the one to say it, but we should sit down and work out > > > whether it is justifiable to merge any of this into Linux. I think > > > it's still the case that the Xen technology is the "old" way and that > > > the world is moving off in the "new" direction, KVM? > > > > I don't think that's a particularly useful way to look at it. They're > > different approaches to the problem, and have different tradeoffs. > > > > The more important question is: are there real users for this stuff? > > Does not merging it cause more net disadvantage than merging it? > > Despite all the noise made about kvm in kernel circles, Xen has a large > > and growing installed base. At the moment its all running on massive > > out-of-tree patches, which doesn't make anyone happy. It's best that it > > be in the mainline kernel. You know, like we argue for everything else. > > OTOH, there are good reasons not to duplicate functionality, and many > many times throughout the kernel history competing solutions have been > rejected even though the same arguments could be made about them. Is it duplication though? I personally have machines with older processors that don't have hvm support. I plan on keeping these around for a good amount of time, and would love to be running them on mainline. So for me, unless KVM is somehow going to support para-virtualisation, this isn't duplication. Just my own personal viewpoint as a user of xen.