On 25.07.2011, at 10:30, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> So i wanted to have a lightweight tool that allows me to test KVM and >>> tools/kvm/ does that very nicely: i type './kvm run' and i can test a >>> native bzImage (which has some virtualization options enabled as >>> well) on the _host_ distro i am running, booting to a text shell >>> prompt. >> >> I do that all the time. >> >> $ qemu-kvm -nographic -kernel arch/x86/boot/bzImage -append console=ttyS0 >> >> does the exact same thing. If that's too much typing for you, make it a bash alias. > > You know, they said the same thing about oprofile. All you needed to do was to > write few simple shell scripts to make it work. One of the key > features of tools/kvm > is 'as little configuration as possible' and I can assure you that > bash alias is really > not a solution for that. I like perf. Really. But I still don't see why it wouldn't be able to live in its own tree either. > [ Yes, yes, I know people apparently use virtio-manager for lauching Qemu so > they don't need to figure out the setup themselves. But now you have *three* > separate components (KVM, Qemu, virtio-manager) which is a completely Having the split between KVM and user space is necessary. One lives in kernel space, the other one in user space. The split between qemu and virt-manager is something I don't like either. But then again I don't like virt-manager :). But what does this have to do with pulling something into the kernel? And reimplementing something that's already been there? > different direction we're taking. Hell, we even went ahead and wrote our own > mini-BIOS just to keep things in one unified tree. ] Yes, making sure that you have even more non-working non-Linux OSs. Alex -- 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
