From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756033Ab1KDQma (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:42:30 -0400 Received: from thoth.sbs.de ([192.35.17.2]:22114 "EHLO thoth.sbs.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754798Ab1KDQm3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:42:29 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB415DF.3050906@siemens.com> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:42:07 +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: Joerg Roedel CC: Pekka Enberg , 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> <4EB3F9CE.1050407@siemens.com> <20111104161329.GO1512@8bytes.org> In-Reply-To: <20111104161329.GO1512@8bytes.org> 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 17:13, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 03:42:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> 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. > > How does it matter? KVM tool does not compete with QEMU. I'm still under the impression that it will start to compete for the reference implementation of KVM changes. I might see ghosts, but I surely do not want to see this happen for many reasons. > The use cases for both programs are different. Really? > KVM tool is a helper for kernel > developers during development Well, 'make' is a helper for kernel development as well... > and additionally good example code on how > to use the KVM kernel interface (because it focuses on KVM only while > QEMU is much more than a KVM userspace). [ If this is architecturally good or bad would be worth a separate discussion. ] > Therefore it makes sense for KVM tool to be developed in the kernel tree > while it doesn't make sense for QEMU. And I disagree regarding KVM tool based on the arguments brought forward so far. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux