dragoran wrote:
It looks like you are right. Apparently the plan is to move the
acceptance of kernel modules to kernel maintainers. For the most part,
they only want to accept very cleanly written modules that are likely to
be integrated into the kernel. Since "kqemu" is viewed as a solution
o
Bill C. Riemers wrote:
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
On 8/16/07, Christian MICHON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> blame it on gmail. this is the default behaviour.
> it's obviously not intended...
At the risk of drifting further off-topic, I'd just point out that you
can press Ctrl-End in the Gmail message window before you type your
reply.
--Ed
On 8/16/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I mean the API. However in practice you'd probably want to try and share
> the implementation as well. In short it's likely to need rewriting before
> it's acceptable upstream.
>
> Paul
>
> P.S. Please don't top-post. Consider this your fin
On Thursday 16 August 2007, Paul Brook wrote:
> If you really want to get it merged I suggest modifying kqemu to use the
> kvm interface, augmenting the kvm interface if necessary.
This sounds like the way to go.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 05:01:42PM +0200, Jernej Simon?i? wrote:
> On Thursday, August 16, 2007, 15:49:14, Paul Brook wrote:
>
> > Mainly because the kernel already has one perfectly good virtualization
> > interface.
>
> Weren't both Xen and lguest recently merged to the (upcoming) 2.6.23
> kern
On Thursday, August 16, 2007, 15:49:14, Paul Brook wrote:
> Mainly because the kernel already has one perfectly good virtualization
> interface.
Weren't both Xen and lguest recently merged to the (upcoming) 2.6.23
kernel?
--
< Jernej Simonèiè ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ >
If it looks
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. Fo
> > 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 merg
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 hardw
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
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
p
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
n
On 8/4/07, Ricardo Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm just a user...
>
> Is it planned to submit kqemu to lkml for inclusion into the mainline
> > kernel?
>
>
> Never seen anyone talking about this...
>
> if not why?
>
>
> Maybe because KVM was included
> (http://git.kernel.org/?p=li
Hi,
I'm just a user...
Is it planned to submit kqemu to lkml for inclusion into the mainline
> kernel?
Never seen anyone talking about this...
if not why?
Maybe because KVM was included (
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=6aa8b732ca01c3d7a54e93f4d701b
Hello,
Is it planned to submit kqemu to lkml for inclusion into the mainline
kernel?
if not why?
if yes any idea when? is it possible to try to get it in 2.6.24 ?
16 matches
Mail list logo
