From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native Linux KVM tool Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 17:58:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4D9F9301.5070204@codemonkey.ws> References: <1301592656.586.15.camel@jaguar> <4D982E89.8070502@redhat.com> <4D9847BC.9060906@redhat.com> <4D98716D.9040307@codemonkey.ws> <4D9873CD.3080207@redhat.com> <20110406093333.GB6465@elte.hu> <4D9E6F6E.9050709@codemonkey.ws> <20110408105952.5e7c2ffb@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , Avi Kivity , Pekka Enberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aarcange@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, joro@8bytes.org, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, asias.hejun@gmail.com, gorcunov@gmail.com To: Scott Wood Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110408105952.5e7c2ffb@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 04/08/2011 10:59 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:14:06 -0500 > Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> If someone was going to seriously go about doing something like this, a >> better approach would be to start with QEMU and remove anything non-x86 >> and all of the UI/command line/management bits and start there. >> >> There's nothing more I'd like to see than a viable alternative to QEMU >> but ignoring any of the architectural mistakes in QEMU and repeating >> them in a new project isn't going to get there. > Supporting only a single architecture sounds like a significant > architectural mistake... only x86 deserves clean code? No, you just have to start somewhere. Since x86 is probably the ugliest, I think it's the best place to start. Regards, Anthony Liguori > -Scott >