From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:16:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20110725101607.GI28787@elte.hu> References: <4E2CA6DE.4040900@web.de> <20110725075305.GA32294@elte.hu> <0EAA5203-D598-4CBA-B8D2-AB371A7689A9@suse.de> <20110725092656.GD28787@elte.hu> <68C2AB77-AA91-4B21-A321-2DB4EF8121C1@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pekka Enberg , Jan Kiszka , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, avi@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, gorcunov@gmail.com, levinsasha928@gmail.com, asias.hejun@gmail.com, prasadjoshi124@gmail.com To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:35018 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751074Ab1GYKQ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 06:16:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <68C2AB77-AA91-4B21-A321-2DB4EF8121C1@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Alexander Graf wrote: > > In fact one of the problems i see with Qemu is that Qemu had to > > make many compromises to support Windows and other weird > > platforms that i'm (and i'd claim most other Linux kernel > > developers) are personally not interested in. > > It's what makes it so powerful. [...] To me and Pekka that is what made Qemu unhackable. Really, i'm not sure why you are arguing here. We are not trying to merge tools/qemu/ upstream. We are trying to merge a Linux-only utility that lives in the kernel tree today and which we are actively using and developing. > [...] Adding a new architecture for KVM for example is as easy as > only implementing the CPU. All device emulation is already there. > If you want something Linux only, lguest would've been enough, no? That's a rather bizarre argument, we were pretty happy with the design of the KVM host side, what we wanted to improve was user-space tooling. With lguest we'd have to write a new host implementation in essence ... > > [...] > > > > tools/kvm/ does less and in my experience does it better - is > > that such a surprising thing? > > [...] > > > So it was a no brainer for me to pull it into -tip. > > The thing I don't agree with is that it should live in the kernel > tree. FYI, tools/kvm/ *already* lives in the kernel tree - that is how it's developed and used and it also shares code with the kernel. Thanks, Ingo