[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111104130225.GA24563@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:02:25 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/GIT PULL] Linux KVM tool for v3.2
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 02:35:18PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> We are reusing kernel code and headers and I am not interested in
> copying them over. Living in the kernel tree is part of the design,
> whether you like it or not.
That's pretty much a blanko argument for throwing everything into the
kernel. What's next, throwing your jvm into the kernel because you like
some kernel helpers?
We've been through this a few times - there is no reason why a tool
using the KVM ioctls should be considered close to the kernel - all
other users get away just fine staying out of tree, and that has
helped to keep the ABI stable.
This sounds more like you should create a libkernelutil with useful
data structures we use in the kernel for userspace programs. I'd love
to use that for a few projects, btw.
--
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