Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels

Avi Kivity
2011-11-06T15:56:53Z

On 11/06/2011 03:06 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> > You say that kvm-tool's scope is broader than Alex's script, therefore
> > the latter is pointless.
>
> I'm saying that Alex's script is pointless because it's not attempting
> to fix the real issues. For example, we're trying to make make it as
> easy as possible to setup a guest and to be able to access guest data
> from the host.

Have you tried virt-install/virt-manager?

> Alex's script is essentially just a simplified QEMU
> "front end" for kernel developers.

AFAIR it was based off a random Linus remark.

> That's why I feel it's a pointless thing to do.
>
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> > You accept that qemu's scope is broader than kvm-tool (and is a
> > superset). That is why many people think kvm-tool is pointless.
>
> Sure. I think it's mostly people that are interested in non-Linux
> virtualization that think the KVM tool is a pointless project.
> However, some people (including myself) think the KVM tool is a more
> usable and hackable tool than QEMU for Linux virtualization.

More hackable, certainly, as any 20kloc project will be compared to a
700+kloc project with a long history. More usable, I really doubt
this. You take it for granted that people want to run their /boot
kernels in a guest, but in fact only kernel developers (and testers)
want this. The majority want the real guest kernel.

> The difference here is that although I feel Alex's script is a
> pointless project, I'm in no way opposed to merging it in the tree if
> people use it and it solves their problem. Some people seem to be
> violently opposed to merging the KVM tool and I'm having difficult
> time understanding why that is.

One of the reasons is that if it is merge, anyone with a #include
<linux/foo.h> will line up for the next merge window, wanting in. The
other is that anything in the Linux source tree might gain an unfair
advantage over out-of-tree projects (at least that's how I read Jan's
comment).

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