On 05/18/2011 12:11 PM, Kohl, Bernhard (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> > Curious, why are you targetting Fedora kernels at all? They have a > really short shelf life. I though kvm-kmod was for people using longer > term kernels like enterprise distros or long lived embedded projects. Here at NSN a couple of developers and testers are using Fedora + kvm-kmod to run some of our systems (with in-house developed OS) on KVM. This works also without kvm-kmod since kernel 2.6.35 (Fedora 14). The number of users (which are not Linux experts at all) is growing since over a year. Usually I prepare and test new versions of kvm-kmod and then it's easy for these guys to install it on their machines. So I always keep track to be up-to-date with the upstream kvm-kmod. The next candidate for kvm-kmod usage here might be your patch set "KVM in-guest performance monitoring", but I think we need a complete kernel for this as major parts of these patches are outside KVM. Some people here are eager for this new feature. Accidentally my colleague Thomas started investigating the performance counter topic 2 weeks ago. Nevertheless I hope that kvm-kmod will live for a while. It is quite useful for our work.
Yes, I can see how it helps your workflow. I guess the only viable alternative would be to prepare a full kernel rpm, but that is a lot more work.
Regarding the PMU, the patchset modifies the core perf_event code and exports some symbols. We might be able to work around these issues but this isn't certain.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
