[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100323094608.GA33152@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:46:08 +0100
From: Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
"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>, sandmann@...mi.au.dk
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:54:37PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Yes, i thought Qemu would be a prime candidate to be the baseline for
> tools/kvm/, but i guess that has become socially impossible now after this
> flamewar. It's not a big problem in the big scheme of things: tools/kvm/ is
> best grown up from a small towards larger size anyway ...
I'm curious, where would you put the limit? Let's imagine a tools/kvm
appears, be it qemu or not, that's outside the scope of my question.
Would you put the legacy PC bios in there (seabios I guess)? The EFI
bios? The windows-compiled paravirtual drivers? The Xorg paravirtual
DDX ? Mesa (which includes the pv gallium drivers)? The
libvirt-equivalent? The GUI?
That's not a rhetorical question btw, I really wonder where the limit
should be.
OG.
--
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