From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932769Ab1KDOoF (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:44:05 -0400 Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]:16883 "EHLO goliath.siemens.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932666Ab1KDOoE (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:44:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB3F9CE.1050407@siemens.com> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:42:22 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Enberg CC: 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 References: <20111104121601.GA15206@infradead.org> <20111104130225.GA24563@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux