Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes: > Yes, there's (obviously) compatibility requirements and artifacts and past > mistakes (as with any software interface), but you need to admit it to Yes that's exactly what I meant. > yourself that your "virtualization is sloppy just like hardware" claim is just In my experience hardware is a lot less sloppy than software. Imagine your latest CPU had as many regressions as 2.6.32 @) I wish software and even VMs were as good. > a cheap excuse to not do a proper job of interface engineering. Past mistakes cannot be easily fixed. And undoubtedly even the new shiny interfaces will have bugs and problems. Also the behaviour is often not completely understood. Maybe it can be easier debugged with fully available source, but even then it's hard to fix the old software (or rather even if you can fix it deploy the fixes). In that regard it's a lot like hardware. I agree with you that this makes it important to design good interfaces, but again realistically mistakes will be made and they cannot be all fixed retroactively. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
