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]
Date:	Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:26:25 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <>
To:	Ingo Molnar <>
CC:	Rusty Russell <>,, netdev <>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] QEMU PIC indirection patch for in-kernel APIC work

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <> wrote:
>>> so right now the only option for a clean codebase is the KVM 
>>> in-kernel code.
>> I strongly disagree with this.
> are you disagreeing with my statement that the KVM kernel-side code is 
> the only clean codebase here? To me this is a clear fact :)

No, I agree with that.  I just disagree with choosing to put the *pic 
code (or other code) into the kernel on *that* basis.  The selection 
should be on design/performance issues alone, *not* the state of 
existing code.

> I only pointed out that the only clean codebase at the moment is the KVM 
> in-kernel code - i did not make the argument (at all) that every new 
> piece of KVM code should be done in the kernel. That would be stupid - 
> do you think i'd advocate for example moving command line argument 
> parsing into the kernel?

No.  But the difference in cruftiness between kvm and qemu code should 
not enter into the discussion of where to do things.

> and as i said in the mail: "the kernel _is_ the best place to do this 
> particular stuff".

I agree with this, maybe for different reasons.

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists