[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLFqe9TpyOs_qYftxRTpfOVPcV=X=MOUBSL4UTCDa5jGvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:30:59 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>
Cc: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
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 Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com> wrote:
>> I don't know if it makes sense to merge the tools you've mentioned above.
>> My gut feeling is that it's probably not reasonable - there's already a
>> community working on it with their own development process and coding
>> style. I don't think there's a simple answer to this but I don't agree with
>> your rather extreme position that all userspace tools should be kept out
>> of the kernel tree.
>
> Ted's position is not extreme. He follows the simple and exactly defined
> border between userspace and kernel. The native userspace feature is
> variability and substitutability.
It's an extreme position because he's arguing that we should only have
kernel code in the tree or we need open up to all userspace code.
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