On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 01:12 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-07-24 22:37, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > Hi Linus, > > > > Please consider pulling from > > > > ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git > > kvm-tool-for-linus > > > > to merge the Native Linux KVM tool to Linux 3.1. > > > > [ The changes to 9p headers were already merged but show up in the pull > > request. ] > > > > The goal of this tool is to provide a clean, from-scratch, lightweight > > KVM host > > tool implementation that can boot Linux guest images with no BIOS > > dependencies > > and with only the minimal amount of legacy device emulation. The primary > > focus > > of the tool is to Linux but there are already people on working on > > supporting > > GRUB and other operating systems. > > > > We want the tool to be part of Linux kernel source tree because we > > believe that > > ʽperfʼ clearly showed the benefits of a single repository for both > > kernel and > > userspace components. See Ingo Molnarʼs email that started the project for > > details: > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/962051/focus=962620 > > I've read several times now that developing in a single tree leads to > better results. Can you provide some example from the QEMU/KVM projects > where the split is preventing innovation, optimizations, or some other > kind of progress? > Anthony had a talk on last years KVM forum regarding the QEMU threading model (slide: http://www.linux-kvm.org/wiki/images/7/70/2010-forum-threading-qemu.pdf) . It was suggested that the KVM part of QEMU is having a hard time achieving the ideal threading model due to its need to support TCG - something which has nothing to do with KVM itself. -- Sasha. -- 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
