On 25.07.2011, at 10:47, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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. > > You know, I've been a Linux kernel hacker for more than five years now > and I've spent way too much of my spare time to improve it. So yes, I > care about Linux. I care about it a lot, actually. It's fair to say I > care about Linux more than I care about it more than any other > operating system out there. > > [ I thought the 'native Linux' part in 'native Linux KVM tool' was a > dead giveaway, really. ] > > Now if people want to support other operating systems, that's cool and > I'm happy to help out where I can. But I don't understand why people > keep bringing non-Linux OSs as an argument for not merging tools/kvm > into the Linux kernel tree. I mean really, did someone actually expect > that a Linux kernel developer spends his weekends improving the state > of Windows virtualization? > > And don't get this the wrong way either, I'm not hostile against other > operating systems, but I simply am not interested enough in them to > spend my time improving them. Then kvm-tool is about as useful as Mac-on-Linux. Why don't we have MoL user land in the kernel? I even added support for KVM to it about a year ago. So all I need to do is change it to the kernel coding style, add some dependencies on kernel headers and I'm good for a pull request? 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
