[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLG6kyq-RoQiBj0B_tThvOy1AxJf6XB2VfQFQJkwQ5cHcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 20:58:20 +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 6, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org> wrote:
>> 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?
And btw, KVM tool is not a random userspace project - it was designed
to live in tools/kvm from the beginning. I've explained the technical
rationale for sharing kernel code here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/4/150
Please also see Ingo's original rant that started the project:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/962051/focus=962620
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