From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752193Ab1KFMnZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Nov 2011 07:43:25 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58570 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751628Ab1KFMnY (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Nov 2011 07:43:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4EB680D9.2070706@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:43:05 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Enberg CC: Alexander Graf , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , qemu-devel Developers , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Blue Swirl Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels References: <1320543320-32728-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4EB65C5B.8070709@redhat.com> <4EB66036.4080102@redhat.com> <1320577728.1428.73.camel@jaguar> <4EB67486.1070105@redhat.com> <4EB67D17.7000701@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: 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 11/06/2011 02:32 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > But from your description, you're trying to solve just another narrow > > problem: > > > > "The end game for me is to replace QEMU/VirtualBox for Linux on Linux > > virtualization for my day to day purposes. " > > > > We rarely merge a subsystem to solve one person's problem (esp. when it > > is defined as "replace another freely available project", even if you > > dislike its command line syntax). > > I really don't understand your point. Other people are using the KVM > tool for other purposes. For example, the (crazy) simulation guys are > using the tool to launch even more guests on a single host and Ingo > seems to be using the tool to test kernels. > > I'm not suggesting we should merge the tool because of my particular > use case. I'm simply saying the problem I personally want to solve > with the KVM tool is broader than what Alexander's script is doing. > That's why I feel it's a pointless project. We're going in circles, but I'll try again. You say that kvm-tool's scope is broader than Alex's script, therefore the latter is pointless. You accept that qemu's scope is broader than kvm-tool (and is a superset). That is why many people think kvm-tool is pointless. Alex's script, though, is just a few dozen lines. kvm-tool is a 20K patch - in fact 2X as large as kvm when it was first merged. And it's main feature seems to be that "it is not qemu". -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function