[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLG4+-Hmpt-dfa7auEs6H1RgWWwYYs=zzb8uvJg8m10_Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:32:45 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: 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 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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?
Please don't give Ingo any funny ideas! :-)
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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.
It's not just about the KVM ABI - it's VESA BIOS data structures,
E820, serial console registers, virtio drivers, kernel utils, and perf
utils.
I know you don't see the benefits of integrated code base but I as a
developer do.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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.
It's certainly a worthwhile project for someone. I'd love to use that too.
Pekka
--
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