From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752017Ab1GYKgU (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 06:36:20 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:59457 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751093Ab1GYKgN (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 06:36:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:35:20 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexander Graf Cc: Pekka Enberg , Jan Kiszka , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, 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 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1 Message-ID: <20110725103517.GL28787@elte.hu> References: <20110725075305.GA32294@elte.hu> <0EAA5203-D598-4CBA-B8D2-AB371A7689A9@suse.de> <20110725092656.GD28787@elte.hu> <68C2AB77-AA91-4B21-A321-2DB4EF8121C1@suse.de> <20110725101607.GI28787@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 25.07.2011, at 12:16, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >> > >>> So it was a no brainer for me to pull it into -tip. > >> > >> The thing I don't agree with is that it should live in the > >> kernel tree. > > > > FYI, tools/kvm/ *already* lives in the kernel tree - that is how > > it's developed and used and it also shares code with the kernel. > > So you're just trying to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy now? No, i'm just trying to point out to you that it's already a fact that the tool already lives in a kernel tree and was developed there to the tune of 700+ commits within a few short months. IMO you should not be arguing: 'You should do X because that's my preference.' IMO you should be arguing: 'You should do X because technical advantage Y which is important to the project.' We have listed numerous technical advantages of why we have chosen tools/kvm/ - and you have not countered that with any convincing technical disadvantage so far. Thanks, Ingo