From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: KVM call agenda for Jan 26
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:13:08 -0600
Message-ID: <4B5EF874.3080306@codemonkey.ws>
References: <20100126064902.GD25779@x200.localdomain> <03EA8701-C607-4B87-A6C6-1DCD3E5DCAAC@suse.de> <4B5EE9EF.6030904@codemonkey.ws> <197BDDDF-D808-4157-8270-42B72B99BE0D@suse.de> <4B5EED22.4080009@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-yx0-f187.google.com ([209.85.210.187]:44568 "EHLO
	mail-yx0-f187.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752414Ab0AZONL (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:13:11 -0500
Received: by yxe17 with SMTP id 17so3643535yxe.33
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:13:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4B5EED22.4080009@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 01/26/2010 07:24 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/26/2010 03:18 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> The main question is where does it belong?
>>
>> a) built into qemu
>> b) built as separate tool, but shipped with qemu
>> c) completely separate
>>
>> I'm personally leaning towards a. That way we can reuse the detection 
>> code and give help when an option is used that doesn't work.
>>
>
> Me too, especially as the whole stack is involved, and qemu is the 
> topmost part from our perspective (no doubt libvirt will want to 
> integrate that functionality as well).

I'm not sure I agree.  It would use no code from qemu and really benefit 
in no way from being part of qemu.  I don't feel that strongly about it 
though.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori