Re: [Qemu-devel] Killing KQEMU

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

Chris Frey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I feel that I should post here, for the simple reason that most QEMU
> users likely don't read this list, and have no idea that developers are
> striving to kill off a valued feature.
>
> This is a very valuable feature to me, as one of those users, and I find
> it sad to read the eagerness some have at getting rid of it.  Not everyone
> has access to the most modern hardware.  And not all hardware is worth
> throwing out just because it doesn't have a CPU capable of virtualization.
>
> I read excuses such as "it's not documented" and "nobody understands it"
> and "there's no maintainer", but in a project such as QEMU, that is nearly
> 500,000 lines of code, the KQEMU kernel module clocks in, for linux,
> at a whopping 674 lines.
>
> I find it hard to believe that these 674 lines of code are too much for
> the substantial braintrust available on this list.
>   

kqemu is a lot larger than 674 lines; what you're looking at is probably 
the glue module from the pre-GPL days that loads into the kernel and 
links into the real kqemu which was supplied as  a binary.

> Wasn't KQEMU written in the first place to be small, auditable, and
> secure?  

kqemu is not small, not auditable, and not secure.

> What has changed that it is now such a burden?
>   

Fabrice left.

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.