From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: KVM is type 1 hypervisor, but...
Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:34:10 -0700
Message-ID: <20170528063410.GA32555@infradead.org>
References: <87109f32-5a26-3ad8-ce5e-d5074d2d69d8@chicoree.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Sylvain Leroux <sylvain@chicoree.fr>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:39900 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750792AbdE1GeM (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 28 May 2017 02:34:12 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87109f32-5a26-3ad8-ce5e-d5074d2d69d8@chicoree.fr>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 07:06:29PM +0200, Sylvain Leroux wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I certainly do not want to start a type 1 vs type 2 holly war. But I'm
> working on some introductory course on virtualization and I have hard
> time to conciliate the average user daily experience with the premise
> KVM *is* type 1.

I think your mail just very much eplained why this arbitrary type 1
vs type 2 classification doesn't make any sense at all.