From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751426Ab1GYHh0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:37:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17107 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751074Ab1GYHhV (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:37:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4E2D1D07.9020009@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:36:39 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc15 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Enberg CC: Anthony Liguori , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, 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 References: <4E2CC489.1090509@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/25/2011 10:27 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > lguest already does this and lives in the kernel. > > Does Lguest have SMP, usermode networking, and GUI support? > IIRC, yes, no, and no. > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > So purely from a kernel perspective, why have two tools in the tree that do > > the same thing? Shouldn't you at least unify the userspace with the lguest > > userspace? > > Are you talking about Documentation/lguest/lguest.c? How would you > suggest we unify our code with that? It should be easy to have tools/kvm drive lguest - they're both virtio based. All you need to do is provide yet another ops structure to drive the two ABIs. I guess lguest.c has to remain, as point of lguest was a simple teaching aid for virtualization (which doesn't work very well, as the techniques it uses are obsolete). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function