[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4614DCE1.70905@qumranet.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:26:25 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] QEMU PIC indirection patch for in-kernel APIC work
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com> 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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists