linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:06:40 +0200
From:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, avi@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, gorcunov@...il.com, levinsasha928@...il.com,
	asias.hejun@...il.com, prasadjoshi124@...il.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1


On 25.07.2011, at 10:47, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Hi Alexander,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de> wrote:
>>>  different direction we're taking. Hell, we even went ahead and wrote our own
>>>  mini-BIOS just to keep things in one unified tree. ]
>> 
>> Yes, making sure that you have even more non-working non-Linux OSs.
> 
> You know, I've been a Linux kernel hacker for more than five years now
> and I've spent way too much of my spare time to improve it. So yes, I
> care about Linux. I care about it a lot, actually. It's fair to say I
> care about Linux more than I care about it more than any other
> operating system out there.
> 
> [ I thought the 'native Linux' part in 'native Linux KVM tool' was a
> dead giveaway, really. ]
> 
> Now if people want to support other operating systems, that's cool and
> I'm happy to help out where I can. But I don't understand why people
> keep bringing non-Linux OSs as an argument for not merging tools/kvm
> into the Linux kernel tree. I mean really, did someone actually expect
> that a Linux kernel developer spends his weekends improving the state
> of Windows virtualization?
> 
> And don't get this the wrong way either, I'm not hostile against other
> operating systems, but I simply am not interested enough in them to
> spend my time improving them.

Then kvm-tool is about as useful as Mac-on-Linux. Why don't we have MoL user land in the kernel? I even added support for KVM to it about a year ago. So all I need to do is change it to the kernel coding style, add some dependencies on kernel headers and I'm good for a pull request?


Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/