From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MBatN-0004YQ-MK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:47:29 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MBatJ-0004Tl-Oz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:47:29 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43360 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MBatJ-0004TP-Ed for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:47:25 -0400 Received: from mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.47]:45240) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MBatI-0001p8-Gj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:47:25 -0400 Received: from aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20090602204717.CRWS6742.mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:47:17 +0100 Received: from miranda.arrow ([213.107.24.213]) by aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20090602204717.UTNU21638.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@miranda.arrow> for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:47:17 +0100 Received: from sdb by miranda.arrow with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MBat9-0004Fn-2S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:47:15 +0100 Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:47:14 +0100 From: Stuart Brady Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU Message-ID: <20090602204714.GA16314@miranda.arrow> References: <20090602035217.GA16574@foursquare.net> <200906012345.18729.rickv@hobi.com> <200906021354.31637.paul@codesourcery.com> <20090602200918.GA27850@foursquare.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090602200918.GA27850@foursquare.net> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 04:09:18PM -0400, Chris Frey wrote: > > Or let me put it another way: At some point I'll get fed up of the > > limitations that kqemu currently imposes, and deliberately break it. > > I would hope that anyone who deliberately breaks kqemu support would be > kind enough to post that fact to the mailing list, with a description of > what's broken and why, so that others may step up to the plate and fix it. Perhaps so, but unless someone is actually going to fix kqemu or write a replacement, I don't see what difference this really makes. > According to other threads on this list, it would appear that getting > KQEMU into the kernel is often thought of as impossible, or "would never > happen." So this isn't really a solution either. More like "impossible because it *should* never happen". kqemu is not known to be secure. I don't know what the position of developers for kernels besides Linux is on this, but it's hardly the point, tbh... -- Stuart Brady