From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MBLSC-0005CT-E7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:18:24 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MBLS8-0005An-OU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:18:24 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54521 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MBLS8-0005Ab-F0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:18:20 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:36636) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MBLS8-0006J3-1n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:18:20 -0400 Message-ID: <4A24A806.4060609@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:18:14 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Killing KQEMU References: <20090602035217.GA16574@foursquare.net> In-Reply-To: <20090602035217.GA16574@foursquare.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Chris Frey Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Chris Frey wrote: > Hi, > > I feel that I should post here, for the simple reason that most QEMU > users likely don't read this list, and have no idea that developers are > striving to kill off a valued feature. > > This is a very valuable feature to me, as one of those users, and I find > it sad to read the eagerness some have at getting rid of it. Not everyone > has access to the most modern hardware. And not all hardware is worth > throwing out just because it doesn't have a CPU capable of virtualization. > > I read excuses such as "it's not documented" and "nobody understands it" > and "there's no maintainer", but in a project such as QEMU, that is nearly > 500,000 lines of code, the KQEMU kernel module clocks in, for linux, > at a whopping 674 lines. > > I find it hard to believe that these 674 lines of code are too much for > the substantial braintrust available on this list. > kqemu is a lot larger than 674 lines; what you're looking at is probably the glue module from the pre-GPL days that loads into the kernel and links into the real kqemu which was supplied as a binary. > Wasn't KQEMU written in the first place to be small, auditable, and > secure? kqemu is not small, not auditable, and not secure. > What has changed that it is now such a burden? > Fabrice left. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.