From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767660AbXCIXiX (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:38:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767662AbXCIXiX (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:38:23 -0500 Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com ([65.113.40.141]:54909 "EHLO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767660AbXCIXiV (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:38:21 -0500 Message-ID: <45F1EFEC.5060106@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:38:20 -0800 From: Zachary Amsden User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Thomas Gleixner , john stultz , akpm@linux-foundation.org, LKML , Rusty Russell , Andi Kleen , Chris Wright , Alan Cox Subject: Re: ABI coupling to hypervisors via CONFIG_PARAVIRT References: <20070309180230.GA17988@elte.hu> <20070309192420.GA27747@elte.hu> <20070309201257.GA5761@elte.hu> <20070309213607.GA16796@elte.hu> <20070309231041.GA712@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070309231041.GA712@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >> [...] If that is the case then my ABI worries would indeed be wrong >> and i'd owe Zach a big fat apology [and more] for my flames ;-) >> > > that apology i very much owe to Zach no matter what the outcome of the > discussion. Zach, some of my mindless characterisations of the quality > of VMI code (and of your intentions) were really out of bound and were > unfair, and i'd like to apologize for that :-/ > That's fine. Despite not having an open source hypervisor, we really don't have evil intentions, and we really don't want to create tension or impede the progress of anyone else. We think this work has positive benefits for Linux, our hypervisor, and others as well. Some of our code did very much need fixing, and the positive thing we can take away from such a heated discussion is that we probably got more eyes on our code, maybe trying to find the evil, and instead finding bugs or things we could have done better. At least someone did need to play devil's advocate, as this is an important thing to get right for the future direction of Linux, and I respect you for doing so, and don't take offense. Zach