[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLFqjKizPwk_BODxPNrHncwiBccnLdr4pU9RSc9DYNKztA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 15:11:47 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> Alex's script, though, is just a few dozen lines. kvm-tool is a 20K
> patch - in fact 2X as large as kvm when it was first merged. And it's
> main feature seems to be that "it is not qemu".
I think I've mentioned many times that I find the QEMU source terribly
difficult to read and hack on. So if you mean "not qemu" from that
point of view, sure, I think it's a very important point. The command
line interface is also "not qemu" for a very good reason too.
As for virtio drivers and such, we're actually following QEMU's
example very closely. I guess we're going to diverge a bit for better
guest isolation but fundamentally I don't see why we'd want to be
totally different from QEMU on that level.
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