[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090528.210559.137121893.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jeremy@...p.org
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, dan.magenheimer@...cle.com, avi@...hat.com,
George.Dunlap@...citrix.com, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
keir.fraser@...citrix.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
gregkh@...e.de, kurt.hackel@...cle.com, Ian.Pratt@...rix.com,
xen-users@...ts.xensource.com, ksrinivasan@...ell.com,
EAnderson@...ell.com, wimcoekaerts@...mekes.net,
stephen.spector@...rix.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com, npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: Xen is a feature
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 17:45:34 -0700
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Xen changes - especially dom0 - are overwhelmingly not about improving
>> Linux, but about having some special hook and extra treatment in
>> random places - and that's really bad.
>>
>
> You've made this argument a few times now, and I take exception to it.
>
> It seems to be predicated on the idea that Xen has some kind of niche
> usage, with barely more users than Voyager. Or that it is a parasite
> sitting on the side of Linux, being a pure drain.
I don't see Ingo's comments, whether I agree with them or not, as
an implication of Xen being niche. Rather I see his comments as
an opposition to how Xen is implemented.
> We're taking your technical critiques very seriously, of course, and I
> appreciate any constructive comment. But your baseline position of
> animosity towards Xen is unreasonable, unfair and unnecessary.
I don't see any animosity at all in what Ingo has said.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists