From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ILfvl-0000P6-CA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:02:33 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ILfvi-0000Ou-RQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:02:33 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILfvi-0000Or-OL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:02:30 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.248]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ILfvi-00040Q-8U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:02:30 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so24869and for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <779506c70708160702v52d1305u8d513b1dc9a81c98@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:02:26 -0400 From: "Leonardo Reiter" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] merging kqemu into mainline kernel? In-Reply-To: <200708161449.15732.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <23bcb8700708160542m45c3d561q3c1590fcfeea3a09@mail.gmail.com> <46C448DA.70303@gmail.com> <200708161449.15732.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Are you referring to the API when you say interface, or the functionality itself? If the former that's a reasonable argument, but the latter is not valid since KVM requires a VT or AMD-V-capable processor, right? KQEMU does not, and therefore [today] works on a much larger installed base of hardware. Unless I am misunderstanding something? - Leo Reiter On 8/16/07, Paul Brook wrote: > On Thursday 16 August 2007, dragoran wrote: > > Bill C. Riemers wrote: > > > You don't need to compile kqemu into the kernel. When I install > > > dkms-kqemu from freshrpms, I do NOT rebuild my kernel. I am fairly > > > certain with Fedora's new policy for extras, there would not be much > > > of a problem getting it added to Fedora. For that matter, it could > > > probably get added into the new Enterprise Extra's repository as > > > well. However, someone would need to volunteer to maintain the package. > > > > no thats not true fedora want to change the policy about out of tree > > modules the want to drop all kmod-* packages and only allow modules into > > the kernel rpm that are upstream or about to get merged upstream. > > anyway why has kqemu to be a out of tree module? > > Mainly because the kernel already has one perfectly good virtualization > interface. There's very little motivation to add another incompatible one, > especially when the implementation is known to be fundamentally flawed, and > probably insecure. > > If you really want to get it merged I suggest modifying kqemu to use the kvm > interface, augmenting the kvm interface if necessary. > > Paul > > >