* Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/18/2010 10:56 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >* Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>On 03/17/2010 10:10 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>>>It's about who owns the user interface. > >>>> > >>>>If qemu owns the user interface, than we can satisfy this in a very > >>>>simple way by adding a perf monitor command. If we have to support third > >>>>party tools, then it significantly complicates things. > >>>Of course illogical modularization complicates things 'significantly'. > >>Who should own the user interface then? > >If qemu was in tools/kvm/ then we wouldnt have such issues. A single patch (or > >series of patches) could modify tools/kvm/, arch/x86/kvm/, virt/ and > >tools/perf/. > > We would have exactly the same issues, only they would be in a single > repository. The only difference is that we could ignore potential > alternatives to qemu, libvirt, and RHEV-M. But that's not how kernel ABIs > are developed, we try to make them general, not suited to just one consumer > that happens to be close to our heart. Not at all - as i replied to in a previous mail, tools/perf/ still has a clear userspace interface and ABI, and external projects are making use of it. So there's no problem with the ABI at all. In fact our experience has been the opposite: the perf ABI is markedly better _because_ there's an immediate consumer of it in the form of tools/perf/. It gets tested better and external projects can get their ABI tweaks in as well and can provide a reference implementation for tools/perf. This has happened a couple of times. It's a win-win scenario. So the exact opposite of what you suggest is happening in practice. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
