Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code

[Stuart Brady <sdbrady@ntlworld.com>]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 04:12:52AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> If we disable in configure, then we should remove it from the tree.  The
> feeling is that code that's disabled by default is too likely to bitrot.
> 
> I think you've made a reasonable suggestion though.  So unless there are
> strong feelings otherwise, I think we should do -no-kqemu by default for
> 0.11, see what the reaction is, then figure out whether we want to
> deprecate/remove.

One option that has not been suggested is building binaries both with and
without kqemu enabled by default.  This would allow limitations that are
imposed by enabling kqemu to be avoided, but wouldn't help to avoid any
limitations imposed by the mere existence of kqemu support in the code.
It also gives the user an extra binary that they shouldn't really have
to know or care about, and prevents any "what happened to kqemu?!"
feedback from being received.

However, as an intermediate step, perhaps it might be worth considering.

Either way, kqemu will clearly disappear at some point, unless someone
with the required knowledge, skill, time, interest and pervasiveness
intervenes.

Silly question, btw -- I've heard on several occasions that kqemu is not
auditable.  Is it even possible to produce a replacement with reasonable
performance that *is* auditable?

(Whilst I certainly have the interest, I'm not sure whether I possess a
sufficient quantity of the other four required attributes to implement
something like this for KVM, if such a thing is even possible.)

Cheers,
-- 
Stuart Brady