From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44409) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SbPLg-0006wl-Bd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:57:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SbPLe-0001ad-K9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:56:59 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:51746) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SbPLe-0001aX-E4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:56:58 -0400 Received: by pbbro12 with SMTP id ro12so5954864pbb.4 for ; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FCC4009.9060907@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:56:41 +0800 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1337882362-20100-1-git-send-email-zwu.kernel@gmail.com> <20120524175321.31254444@doriath.home> <20120525100753.GD30110@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> <20120525095313.116f680f@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <20120525095313.116f680f@doriath.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 00/16] net: hub-based networking List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , zwu.kernel@gmail.com, wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, pbonzini@redhat.com On 05/25/2012 08:53 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:01:37 +0100 > Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >> I agree it would be nice to drop entirely but I don't feel happy doing >> that to users who might have QEMU buried in scripts somewhere. One >> day they upgrade packages and suddenly their stuff doesn't work >> anymore. > > This is very similar to kqemu and I don't think we regret having dropped it. You couldn't imagine the number of complaints I got from users about dropping kqemu. It caused me considerable pain. Complaints ranged from down right hostile (I had to involve the Launchpad admins at one point because of a particular user) to entirely sympathetic. kqemu wasn't just a maintenance burden, it was preventing large guest memory support in KVM guests. There was no simple way around it without breaking kqemu ABI and making significant changes to the kqemu module. Dropping features is only something that should be approached lightly and certainly not something that should be done just because you don't like a particular bit of code. Regards, Anthony Liguori >