From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LVone-0005qh-02
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:08:54 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LVonc-0005p5-Vx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:08:53 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34371 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LVonc-0005os-QH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:08:52 -0500
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241]:16495)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1LVonc-0002Jt-DL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:08:52 -0500
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b6so644840ana.37
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat, 07 Feb 2009 07:08:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <498DA3EC.8070209@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:08:28 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Cutting a new QEMU release
References: <1233825194.6637.4.camel@ecrins.fosdick.home.net>	<498AF6FC.90803@codemonkey.ws>
	<498D7837.1090803@mail.berlios.de>
In-Reply-To: <498D7837.1090803@mail.berlios.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Stefan Weil wrote:
> The kvm kernel module could be a good replacement for kqemu
> for those running linux on new cpus.
>
> It does not play this role in current linux distributions because
> you will need newer versions of kvm which are sometimes
> difficult to compile.
>
> It will never play this role for those running "old" cpus.
>
> And it will never play this role on Windows (or is there a kvm
> for Windows?). I am surprised that nobody mentions this part
> in the discussion.
>
> So even if kqemu is unmaintained, the Qemu developers
> should at least maintain the interface.
>
> I'd prefer to have a svn tree with kqemu beside qemu.
> Then patches could be sent, and maybe some day there could
> be a maintainer, too.
>   

Nothing is stopping anyone from taking kqemu and setting up a SVN repo 
somewhere.  That's the beauty of the GPL.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Integration of code from virtualbox could be a way to replace
> kqemu, but I don't see this coming in the near future.
>
> Regards
> Stefan Weil
>
>
>
>