Are you referring to the API when you say interface, or the functionality itself? If the former that's a reasonable argument, but the latter is not valid since KVM requires a VT or AMD-V-capable processor, right? KQEMU does not, and therefore [today] works on a much larger installed base of hardware. Unless I am misunderstanding something?
- Leo Reiter On 8/16/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 16 August 2007, dragoran wrote: > > Bill C. Riemers wrote: > > > You don't need to compile kqemu into the kernel. When I install > > > dkms-kqemu from freshrpms, I do NOT rebuild my kernel. I am fairly > > > certain with Fedora's new policy for extras, there would not be much > > > of a problem getting it added to Fedora. For that matter, it could > > > probably get added into the new Enterprise Extra's repository as > > > well. However, someone would need to volunteer to maintain the package. > > > > no thats not true fedora want to change the policy about out of tree > > modules the want to drop all kmod-* packages and only allow modules into > > the kernel rpm that are upstream or about to get merged upstream. > > anyway why has kqemu to be a out of tree module? > > Mainly because the kernel already has one perfectly good virtualization > interface. There's very little motivation to add another incompatible one, > especially when the implementation is known to be fundamentally flawed, and > probably insecure. > > If you really want to get it merged I suggest modifying kqemu to use the kvm > interface, augmenting the kvm interface if necessary. > > Paul > > >