From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932787Ab1KDQNc (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:13:32 -0400 Received: from 8bytes.org ([88.198.83.132]:55495 "EHLO 8bytes.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755845Ab1KDQNb (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:13:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:13:29 +0100 From: Joerg Roedel To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Pekka Enberg , Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , Avi Kivity , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/GIT PULL] Linux KVM tool for v3.2 Message-ID: <20111104161329.GO1512@8bytes.org> References: <20111104121601.GA15206@infradead.org> <20111104130225.GA24563@infradead.org> <4EB3F9CE.1050407@siemens.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EB3F9CE.1050407@siemens.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 03:42:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-11-04 14:32, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > I know you don't see the benefits of integrated code base but I as a > > developer do. > > IIRC, this discussion still lacks striking, concrete examples from the > KVM tool vs. QEMU development processes. How does it matter? KVM tool does not compete with QEMU. The use cases for both programs are different. KVM tool is a helper for kernel developers during development and additionally good example code on how to use the KVM kernel interface (because it focuses on KVM only while QEMU is much more than a KVM userspace). Therefore it makes sense for KVM tool to be developed in the kernel tree while it doesn't make sense for QEMU. Regards, Joerg