On 25.07.2011, at 09:53, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Pekka Enberg <penb...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: >>> That said, I definitely appreciate the bug fixes as well as code and >>> documentation improvements for KVM that originate from this effort! I'm >>> just not convinced that writing a new userland and merging it into the >>> kernel is the most efficient way to achieve that. >> >> Just to make this crystal clear for everyone: if it weren't for >> tools/kvm, I wouldn't be hacking on KVM at all. I've looked at Qemu >> in the past (and a lot recently!) and I simply don't see myself >> contributing to it, sorry. So 'most efficient' or not, I think >> tools/kvm is a net win for Linux and KVM in general. > > Same here - in fact i first asked Qemu to be put into tools/qemu/ so > that it all becomes more hackable and more usable - that suggestion > was rebuked very strongly.
So instead of thinking a bit and trying to realize that there might be a reason people don't want all their user space in the kernel tree you go ahead and start your own crusade of creating a new user space. Great. That's how I always hoped Linux would be :(. > So i wanted to have a lightweight tool that allows me to test KVM and > tools/kvm/ does that very nicely: i type './kvm run' and i can test a > native bzImage (which has some virtualization options enabled as > well) on the _host_ distro i am running, booting to a text shell > prompt. I do that all the time. $ qemu-kvm -nographic -kernel arch/x86/boot/bzImage -append console=ttyS0 does the exact same thing. If that's too much typing for you, make it a bash alias. > I can do that without downloading any (inevitably outdated) > virtualization images or maintaining my own ones. Maintaining host > userspace is more than enough for me. Who would need images? I usually only run -kernel and -initrd directly to test out things. Or if I really want to boot into a real system I do -snapshot /dev/sda. > So, since we already have the lguest tool in the kernel tree, why > cannot we have the much more capable tools/kvm/ in the tree? Lguest is in Documentation/ for a reason. It's not meant as a user space tool that you take as-is and use. It's meant for documenting how lguest works in general. I admit though, that that's also the reason people don't use it :). > So while it is the Qemu folks' right to oppose tools/qemu/, i don't > see why they are opposing tools/kvm/ ... In your logic, you would put all of the GNU utils into tools/. This is just plain insane. There's a reason we have the split between kernel and user space. What does putting them into the same tree bring you? Fame? Glorious stats on kernel commits? Seriously, it's a separate project. It's not the kernel. > Wrt. integration with lguest - this is a new argument that was not > brought up before (i wish people would not come up with new > requirements on the day of the pull request) - i don't see how it's > relevant really: lguest was designed for legacy CPUs and tools/kvm/ > is precisely about being simple and not doing legacy stuff. > > If then Qemu should be the project that integrates lguest. Is anyone > on the Qemu side looking at lguest integration? I don't think lguest integration makes sense for anyone or anything. Lguest is a toy, so let it be the toy it wants to be. Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
