From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:04:09 +0200 Message-ID: <4BA7B119.1070800@redhat.com> References: <20100318172805.GB26067@elte.hu> <4BA67B2F.4030101@redhat.com> <20100321203121.GA30194@elte.hu> <20100322111040.GL13108@8bytes.org> <20100322122228.GH3483@elte.hu> <20100322134633.GD1940@8bytes.org> <20100322163215.GC18796@elte.hu> <84144f021003221027t1a3e7d6ft64612654c5e50da@mail.gmail.com> <4BA7A9AF.3010806@redhat.com> <84144f021003221052lb693f15ped0b432c34cdd8dc@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Ingo Molnar , Joerg Roedel , Anthony Liguori , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , Sheng Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , ziteng.huang@intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker To: Pekka Enberg Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22188 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753215Ab0CVSE1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:04:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <84144f021003221052lb693f15ped0b432c34cdd8dc@mail.gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/22/2010 07:52 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Avi, > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> It's kinda funny to see people argue that having an external >>> repository is not a problem and that it's not a big deal if building >>> something from the repository is slightly painful as long as it >>> doesn't require a PhD when we have _real world_ experience that it >>> _does_ limit developer base in some cases. Whether or not that applies >>> to kvm remains to be seen but I've yet to see a convincing argument >>> why it doesn't. >>> >> qemu has non-Linux developers. Not all of their contributions are relevant >> to kvm but some are. If we pull qemu into tools/kvm, we lose them. >> > Yeah, you probably would but the hypothesis is that you'd end up with > a bigger net developer base for the _Linux_ version. Now you might not > think that's important but I certainly do and I think Ingo does as > well. ;-) > You're probably correct, but the point is that non-Linux developers also contribute things which kvm benefits from. Not a whole lot, but some. > That said, pulling 400 KLOC of code into the kernel sounds really > excessive. Would we need all that if we just do native virtualization > and no actual emulation? > What is native virtualization and no actual emulation? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function