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

Pekka Enberg
2011-11-07T13:12:31Z

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> I don't think perf should be used as a precendent that now argues that
> any new kernel utility should be moved into the kernel sources.  Does
> it make sense to move all of mount, fsck, login, etc., into the kernel
> sources?  There are far more kernel tools outside of the kernel
> sources than inside the kernel sources.

You seem to think that the KVM tool was developed in isolation and we
simply copied the code to tools/kvm for the pull request. That's simply
not true. We've done a lot of work to make the code feel like kernel code
from locking primitive APIs to serial console emulation register names.
We really consider KVM tool to be a new Linux subsystem. It's the long
lost cousin or bastard child of KVM, depending on who you ask.

I don't know if it makes sense to merge the tools you've mentioned above.
My gut feeling is that it's probably not reasonable - there's already a
community working on it with their own development process and coding
style. I don't think there's a simple answer to this but I don't agree with
your rather extreme position that all userspace tools should be kept out
of the kernel tree.

Pekka