From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756113Ab0CVTyT (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:54:19 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:45708 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755966Ab0CVTyR (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:54:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:54:03 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexander Graf Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , Anthony Liguori , Avi Kivity , Pekka Enberg , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , Sheng Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , oerg Roedel , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , ziteng.huang@intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker , Gregory Haskins Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project Message-ID: <20100322195403.GC3306@elte.hu> References: <4BA7821C.7090900@codemonkey.ws> <20100322155505.GA18796@elte.hu> <4BA796DF.7090005@redhat.com> <20100322165107.GD18796@elte.hu> <4BA7A406.9050203@redhat.com> <20100322173400.GB15795@elte.hu> <4BA7AF2D.7060306@redhat.com> <4BA7C1D7.5070208@codemonkey.ws> <20100322193100.GB28709@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alexander Graf wrote: > Yes. I think the point was that every layer in between brings potential > slowdown and loss of features. Exactly. The more 'fragmented' a project is into sub-projects, without a single, unified, functional reference implementation in the center of it, the longer it takes to fix 'unsexy' problems like trivial usability bugs. Furthermore, another negative effect is that many times features are implemented not in their technically best way, but in a way to keep them local to the project that originates them. This is done to keep deployment latencies and general contribution overhead down to a minimum. The moment you have to work with yet another project, the overhead adds up. So developers rather go for the quicker (yet inferior) hack within the sub-project they have best access to. Tell me this isnt happening in this space ;-) Thanks, Ingo