linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/GIT PULL] Linux KVM tool for v3.2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4EB415DF.3050906@siemens.com>
Date:	Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:42:07 +0100
From:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	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" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/GIT PULL] Linux KVM tool for v3.2

On 2011-11-04 17:13, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 03:42:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-11-04 14:32, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> I know you don't see the benefits of integrated code base but I as a
>>> developer do.
>>
>> IIRC, this discussion still lacks striking, concrete examples from the
>> KVM tool vs. QEMU development processes.
> 
> How does it matter? KVM tool does not compete with QEMU.

I'm still under the impression that it will start to compete for the
reference implementation of KVM changes. I might see ghosts, but I
surely do not want to see this happen for many reasons.

> The use cases for both programs are different.

Really?

> KVM tool is a helper for kernel
> developers during development

Well, 'make' is a helper for kernel development as well...

> and additionally good example code on how
> to use the KVM kernel interface (because it focuses on KVM only while
> QEMU is much more than a KVM userspace).

[ If this is architecturally good or bad would be worth a separate
discussion. ]

> Therefore it makes sense for KVM tool to be developed in the kernel tree
> while it doesn't make sense for QEMU.

And I disagree regarding KVM tool based on the arguments brought forward
so far.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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/