From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52748) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RN24H-0002qb-25 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 07:43:21 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RN24G-00083y-2Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 07:43:21 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54676) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RN24F-00083t-PC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 07:43:20 -0500 Message-ID: <4EB680D9.2070706@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:43:05 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1320543320-32728-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4EB65C5B.8070709@redhat.com> <4EB66036.4080102@redhat.com> <1320577728.1428.73.camel@jaguar> <4EB67486.1070105@redhat.com> <4EB67D17.7000701@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Pekka Enberg Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , qemu-devel Developers , Alexander Graf , Blue Swirl , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds On 11/06/2011 02:32 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > But from your description, you're trying to solve just another narrow > > problem: > > > > "The end game for me is to replace QEMU/VirtualBox for Linux on Linux > > virtualization for my day to day purposes. " > > > > We rarely merge a subsystem to solve one person's problem (esp. when it > > is defined as "replace another freely available project", even if you > > dislike its command line syntax). > > I really don't understand your point. Other people are using the KVM > tool for other purposes. For example, the (crazy) simulation guys are > using the tool to launch even more guests on a single host and Ingo > seems to be using the tool to test kernels. > > I'm not suggesting we should merge the tool because of my particular > use case. I'm simply saying the problem I personally want to solve > with the KVM tool is broader than what Alexander's script is doing. > That's why I feel it's a pointless project. We're going in circles, but I'll try again. You say that kvm-tool's scope is broader than Alex's script, therefore the latter is pointless. You accept that qemu's scope is broader than kvm-tool (and is a superset). That is why many people think kvm-tool is pointless. Alex's script, though, is just a few dozen lines. kvm-tool is a 20K patch - in fact 2X as large as kvm when it was first merged. And it's main feature seems to be that "it is not qemu". -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function