From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:51:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20091218215107.GA14946@elte.hu> References: <4B1D4F29.8020309@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" To: Gregory Haskins , Avi Kivity , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B1D4F29.8020309@gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org * Gregory Haskins wrote: > Hi Linus, > > Please pull AlacrityVM guest support for 2.6.33 from: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ghaskins/alacrityvm/linux-2.6.git > for-linus > > All of these patches have stewed in linux-next for quite a while now: > > Gregory Haskins (26): I think it would be fair to point out that these patches have been objected to by the KVM folks quite extensively, on multiple technical grounds - as basically this tree forks the KVM driver space for which no valid technical reason could be offered by you in a 100+ mails long discussion. (And yes, i've been Cc:-ed to much of that thread.) The result will IMO be pain for users because now we'll have two frameworks, tooling incompatibilities, etc. etc. I've extended the Cc: for the KVM folks to have a chance to reply. Please try _much_ harder to work with the KVM folks instead of ignoring their feedback and de-facto forking their project. (and not mentioning any of this in your pull request) We should unify, not fracture. Ingo