From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M9ytr-0000yF-Bh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:01:19 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M9ytm-0000wd-6C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:01:18 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38350 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M9ytl-0000wY-T6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:01:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:48212) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M9ytl-0006Yp-0L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:01:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:00:17 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code Message-ID: <20090529100017.GD29375@redhat.com> References: <1243551838-1980-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4A1F77C0.9050407@codemonkey.ws> <4A1FA616.7040402@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A1FA616.7040402@siemens.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Glauber Costa , aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: > > > o There is no alternative for non-Linux users and folks with non-VT/SVM > > hardware > > The non-HVM argument will become widely irrelevant (for desktops) very > soon. The non-Linux issue will likely persist - unless someone feels so > much pain to write some KVM for those platforms. But as long as there is > a kqemu version that builds and works for them, I think we should keep > QEMU's support. But it should no longer be a first-class citizen: off by > default, factored out into more hooks, maybe even de-optimized where it > blocks development or increases the maintenance effort of QEMU. The non-HVM argument will always exist, and could actually get worse if lots of vendors start shipping with embedded hypervisors, such that your 'real' OS is already virtualized behind your back. That said I do agree with you - we're still better off killing/deprecating kqemu and using any spare effort to improve nested-SVM/VT support which is a more useful long term feature. Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|