From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
 	project
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:06:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4BA7B1AE.6050500@redhat.com>
References: <20100321205531.GC30194@elte.hu> <20100322111411.GC3483@elte.hu>	 <4BA7629B.7020604@redhat.com> <20100322124428.GA12475@elte.hu>	 <4BA76810.4040609@redhat.com> <20100322143212.GE14201@elte.hu>	 <4BA7821C.7090900@codemonkey.ws> <20100322155505.GA18796@elte.hu>	 <4BA796DF.7090005@redhat.com> <4BA797C9.2030703@redhat.com> <84144f021003220940x25e40624pb0b86f62b79fd707@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	oerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>, ziteng.huang@intel.com,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
	Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <84144f021003220940x25e40624pb0b86f62b79fd707@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 03/22/2010 06:40 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com>  wrote:
>    
>>> You simply kept ignoring me when I said that if something can be kept out
>>> of the kernel without impacting performance, it should be.  I don't want
>>> emergency patches closing some security hole or oops in a kernel symbol
>>> server.
>>>        
>> Or rather, explained how I am a wicked microkernelist.  The herring were out
>> in force today.
>>      
> Well, if it's not being a "wicked microkernelist" then what is it?
>    

I know I'm bad.

> Performance is hardly the only motivation to put things into the
> kernel. Think kernel mode-setting and devtmpfs (with the ironic twist
> of original devfs being removed from the kernel) here, for example.
>    

Motivations include privileged device access, needing to access physical 
memory, security, and keeping the userspace interface sane.  There are 
others.  I don't think any of them hold here.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function