From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ILh2e-0000cs-Oi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:44 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ILh2a-0000cU-ET for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:43 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILh2a-0000cO-1c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:40 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ILh2Z-0003Ac-RF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:39 -0400 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l7GFDXFU001299 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:33 -0400 Received: from file.surrey.redhat.com (file.fab.redhat.com [10.33.63.6]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l7GFDWG5030594 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:33 -0400 Received: (from berrange@localhost) by file.surrey.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l7GFDWwT030023 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:13:32 +0100 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:13:32 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] merging kqemu into mainline kernel? Message-ID: <20070816151332.GF16779@redhat.com> References: <23bcb8700708160542m45c3d561q3c1590fcfeea3a09@mail.gmail.com> <46C448DA.70303@gmail.com> <200708161449.15732.paul@codesourcery.com> <1868339002.20070816170142@ena.si> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1868339002.20070816170142@ena.si> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" , 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 On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 05:01:42PM +0200, Jernej Simon?i? wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2007, 15:49:14, Paul Brook wrote: > > > Mainly because the kernel already has one perfectly good virtualization > > interface. > > Weren't both Xen and lguest recently merged to the (upcoming) 2.6.23 > kernel? They're different to this scenario. Xen & lguest are Host <-> Guest ABIs, and both ultimately use the common paravirt_ops API inside the kernel. kqemu & kvm are Host Kernel <-> Host Userspace APIs, which are completely different, sharing no commonality in their APIs. kqemu stands very little chance getting merged unless it can share its userspace API model with KVM. This would have the added advantage that the QEMU binary would only need to talk one protocol to the kernel too, removing the need for the fork between plain QEMU & KVM-ified QEMU. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|