From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ILfj2-0000qg-0h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:49:24 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ILfiz-0000qS-PT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:49:22 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILfiz-0000qP-Jb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:49:21 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ILfiz-0001NX-4n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:49:21 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] merging kqemu into mainline kernel? Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:49:14 +0100 References: <23bcb8700708160542m45c3d561q3c1590fcfeea3a09@mail.gmail.com> <46C448DA.70303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46C448DA.70303@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708161449.15732.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: "Bill C. Riemers" , dragoran On Thursday 16 August 2007, dragoran wrote: > Bill C. Riemers wrote: > > You don't need to compile kqemu into the kernel. When I install > > dkms-kqemu from freshrpms, I do NOT rebuild my kernel. I am fairly > > certain with Fedora's new policy for extras, there would not be much > > of a problem getting it added to Fedora. For that matter, it could > > probably get added into the new Enterprise Extra's repository as > > well. However, someone would need to volunteer to maintain the package. > > no thats not true fedora want to change the policy about out of tree > modules the want to drop all kmod-* packages and only allow modules into > the kernel rpm that are upstream or about to get merged upstream. > anyway why has kqemu to be a out of tree module? Mainly because the kernel already has one perfectly good virtualization interface. There's very little motivation to add another incompatible one, especially when the implementation is known to be fundamentally flawed, and probably insecure. If you really want to get it merged I suggest modifying kqemu to use the kvm interface, augmenting the kvm interface if necessary. Paul