On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 11:08:10AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> I'm quite happy with KVM tool and hope they continue working on it.
>> My only real wish is that they wouldn't copy QEMU so much and would
>> try bolder things that are fundamentally different from QEMU.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Ted Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote:
> My big wish is that they don't try to merge the KVM tool into the
> kernel code. It's a separate userspace project, and there's no reason
> for it to be bundled with kernel code. It just makes the kernel
> sources larger. The mere fact that qemu-kvm exists means that the KVM
> interface has to remain backward compatible; it *is* an ABI.
>
> So integrating kvm-tool into the kernel isn't going to work as a free
> pass to make non-backwards compatible changes to the KVM user/kernel
> interface. Given that, why bloat the kernel source tree size?
Ted, I'm confused. Making backwards incompatible ABI changes has never
been on the table. Why are you bringing it up?
Pekka
