[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100318191555.GA9741@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:15:55 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: drepper@...il.com
Cc: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, ziteng.huang@...el.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
project
* drepper@...il.com <drepper@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 09:13, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> > The suckage of kernel async IO is for similar reasons: there's an ugly
> > package separation problem between the kernel and between glibc
>
> Bollocks. glibc would use (and is using) everything the kernel provides.
I didnt say it's glibc's fault - if then it's more of the kernel's fault as
most of the complexity is on that side. I said it's due to the fundamental
distance between the app that makes use of it, the library and the kernel, and
the resulting difficulties in getting a combined solution out.
None of the parties really feels it to be their own thing.
Ingo
--
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