From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kiszka Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:24:45 +0200 Message-ID: <4E2DB4ED.4070505@web.de> References: <4E2CA6DE.4040900@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig7D7153CCFAEFE868E9326C99" Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, avi@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, gorcunov@gmail.com, levinsasha928@gmail.com, asias.hejun@gmail.com, prasadjoshi124@gmail.com To: Pekka Enberg Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7D7153CCFAEFE868E9326C99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011-07-25 09:37, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Jan, >=20 > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> I've read several times now that developing in a single tree leads to >> better results. Can you provide some example from the QEMU/KVM project= s >> where the split is preventing innovation, optimizations, or some other= >> kind of progress? >=20 > I really don't follow the Qemu project well enough to comment on what > your biggest pain points are there. Mmh, you can solve problems you do not even need to know about, just by merging them into the kernel? Wait, will send you some more! :) >=20 > As for tools/kvm, it's pretty obvious by now that we want tighter > integration with perf and the tracing facilities (and share code!), > for example so for us merging to mainline is important. Tracing&profiling are important topics, but in the end just small pieces of the virtualization problem space. If that was the strongest reason, it would be like asking gdb guys to merge qemu because it contains a gdbserver. Anyway. Thanks for all the fish! Found nothing new, not much concrete, but many really entertaining answers. So why not repeat this on the next merge window? Jan --------------enig7D7153CCFAEFE868E9326C99 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk4ttPAACgkQitSsb3rl5xRRzACdGjY227PblNbucp7Mut3mHXud HqoAn2Ob3IubD5RSCSR5sKi/2V/PfCCd =w3P0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7D7153CCFAEFE868E9326C99--