netdev - Re: [kvm-devel] QEMU PIC indirection patch for in-kernel APIC work

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:	Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:26:56 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] QEMU PIC indirection patch for in-kernel APIC work

* Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com> wrote:

> > so right now the only option for a clean codebase is the KVM 
> > in-kernel code.
> 
> I strongly disagree with this.

are you disagreeing with my statement that the KVM kernel-side code is 
the only clean codebase here? To me this is a clear fact :)

I only pointed out that the only clean codebase at the moment is the KVM 
in-kernel code - i did not make the argument (at all) that every new 
piece of KVM code should be done in the kernel. That would be stupid - 
do you think i'd advocate for example moving command line argument 
parsing into the kernel?

and as i said in the mail: "the kernel _is_ the best place to do this 
particular stuff".

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html