From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755528Ab0CVRno (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:43:44 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:34911 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755513Ab0CVRnm (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:43:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:28 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Joerg Roedel , Avi Kivity , Anthony Liguori , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , Sheng Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , ziteng.huang@intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project Message-ID: <20100322174328.GA26949@elte.hu> References: <4BA3747F.60401@codemonkey.ws> <20100321191742.GD25922@elte.hu> <4BA67B2F.4030101@redhat.com> <20100321203121.GA30194@elte.hu> <20100322111040.GL13108@8bytes.org> <20100322122228.GH3483@elte.hu> <20100322134633.GD1940@8bytes.org> <20100322163215.GC18796@elte.hu> <84144f021003221027t1a3e7d6ft64612654c5e50da@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84144f021003221027t1a3e7d6ft64612654c5e50da@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Frank, > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > In your very previous paragraphs, you enumerate two separate causes: > > "repository structure" and "development/maintenance process" as being > > sources of "fun". ?Please simply accept that the former is considered > > by many as absolutely trivial compared to the latter, and additional > > verbose repetition of your thesis will not change this. > > I can accept that many people consider it trivial but the problem is that we > have _real data_ on kmemtrace and now perf that the amount of contributors > is significantly smaller when your code is outside the kernel repository. > Now admittedly both of them are pretty intimate with the kernel but Ingo's > suggestion of putting kvm-qemu in tools/ is an interesting idea > nevertheless. Correct. > It's kinda funny to see people argue that having an external repository is > not a problem and that it's not a big deal if building something from the > repository is slightly painful as long as it doesn't require a PhD when we > have _real world_ experience that it _does_ limit developer base in some > cases. Whether or not that applies to kvm remains to be seen but I've yet to > see a convincing argument why it doesn't. Yeah. Also, if in fact the claim that the 'repository does not matter' is true then it doesnt matter that it's hosted in tools/kvm/ either, right? I.e. it's a win-win situation. Worst-case nothing happens beyond a Git URI change. Best-case the project is propelled to never seen heights due to contribution advantages not contemplated and not experienced by the KVM guys before ... Ingo