Re: KVM usability

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com> wrote:

[...]
> 
> Second, it's not over-modularized.  The modules are the individual
> components of the architecture.  How would you propose to put it
> differently.  They really can't naturally combine.  And with the
> code quality of qemu in general being problematic by Linux kernel
> standards, it's not natural to move the device emulation directly
> into the kernel module.  So this is why we are where we are today.

I'm not talking about moving it into a kernel _module_ - albeit that
alone is a worthwile thing to do for any performance sensitive hw
component.

I was talking about the option of a clean, stripped down Qemu base
hosted in the kernel proper, in linux/tools/kvm/ or so. If i were
running a virtualization effort it would be the first place i'd
consider to put my tooling into.

It would be a no-brainer: most of the devs come from the KVM side, and
KVM itself makes little sense without Qemu, and Qemu makes little sense
without KVM these days. (and i know about the non-KVM and non-x86
roots of Qemu - still, it's not a significant piece of usage today) 

> Third, it's the maintainers upstream who are in charge of KVM
> quality as a whole - when you are talking about upstream code
> quality, and the package maintainers who are in charge of KVM
> quality as a whole - when you are talking about a distro.  This is
> nothing new - it's just a statement of decentralization.

It's certainly nothing new. Nor was the suckage of CVS newup until
Git came along and changed the game on a fundamental basis.

Suckage is there to be fought all the time.

	Ingo