linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels

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: <CAOJsxLHvYo5zA+_m-AXuZHjAcGKE5q0ytmPCZ0Gye52LWq1p9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 6 Nov 2011 20:54:24 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@...il.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 11:08:10AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> I'm quite happy with KVM tool and hope they continue working on it.
>> My only real wish is that they wouldn't copy QEMU so much and would
>> try bolder things that are fundamentally different from QEMU.

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> My big wish is that they don't try to merge the KVM tool into the
> kernel code.  It's a separate userspace project, and there's no reason
> for it to be bundled with kernel code.  It just makes the kernel
> sources larger.  The mere fact that qemu-kvm exists means that the KVM
> interface has to remain backward compatible; it *is* an ABI.
>
> So integrating kvm-tool into the kernel isn't going to work as a free
> pass to make non-backwards compatible changes to the KVM user/kernel
> interface.  Given that, why bloat the kernel source tree size?

Ted, I'm confused. Making backwards incompatible ABI changes has never
been on the table. Why are you bringing it up?

                        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/