From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karel Zak Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:29:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20111108132935.GE3322@nb.net.home> References: <877C82F4-F07C-44AA-8722-3AF57CFC4597@suse.de> <4EB7B1A9.9000409@redhat.com> <4EB7CA52.5050409@redhat.com> <20111107122902.GA24685@thunk.org> <20111107124757.GC24685@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "Ted Ts'o" , Gerd Hoffmann , Pekka Enberg , Alexander Graf , Avi Kivity , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , qemu-devel Developers , =?utf-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico?= Wang , Blue Swirl To: Pekka Enberg Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 03:12:28PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > I don't think perf should be used as a precendent that now argues t= hat > > any new kernel utility should be moved into the kernel sources. =C2= =A0Does > > it make sense to move all of mount, fsck, login, etc., into the ker= nel > > sources? =C2=A0There are far more kernel tools outside of the kerne= l > > sources than inside the kernel sources. [...] > I don't know if it makes sense to merge the tools you've mentioned ab= ove. > My gut feeling is that it's probably not reasonable - there's already= a > community working on it with their own development process and coding > style. I don't think there's a simple answer to this but I don't agre= e with > your rather extreme position that all userspace tools should be kept = out > of the kernel tree. Ted's position is not extreme. He follows the simple and exactly define= d border between userspace and kernel. The native userspace feature is variability and substitutability. The util-linux package is really nice example: - you don't have to use it, you can use busybox - we have currently three implementation of login(1), many getty=20 implementations, etc. - it's normal that people use the latest util-linux releases with ver= y=20 old kernels (in year 2008 I had report from person with kernel 2.4:= -) - userspace is very often about portability -- it's crazy, but some p= eople use some utils from util-linux on Hurd, Solaris and BSD (including = very Linux specific things like mkswap and hwclock) Anyway, I agree that small one-man projects are ineffective for important system tools -- it's usually better to merge things into large projects with reliable infrastructure and alive community (here I agree with Lennart's idea to have 3-5 projects for whole low-level userspace).=20 Karel --=20 Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com