linux-kernel - Re: [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: <4EB6DBC6.2010404@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:11:02 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
CC:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@...il.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels

On 11/06/2011 06:28 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Alexander Graf<agraf@...e.de>  wrote:
>>> The difference here is that although I feel Alex's script is a
>>> pointless project, I'm in no way opposed to merging it in the tree if
>>> people use it and it solves their problem. Some people seem to be
>>> violently opposed to merging the KVM tool and I'm having difficult
>>> time understanding why that is.
>>
>> It's a matter of size and scope. Write a shell script that clones, builds and
>> executes KVM Tool and throw it in testing/tools/ and I'll happily ack it!
>
> That's pretty much what git submodule would do, isn't it?

Absolutely not.  It would always fetch HEAD from the KVM tool repo.  A 
submodule ties each supermodule commit to a particular submodule commit.

> I really don't see the point in doing that. We want to be part of
> regular kernel history and release cycle.

But I'm pretty certain that, when testing 3.2 with KVM tool in a couple 
of years, I want all the shining new features you added in this time; I 
don't want the old end-2011 code.  Same if I'm bisecting kernels, I 
don't want to build KVM tool once per bisection cycle, do I?

Paolo
--
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/