* Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 25.07.2011, at 11:41, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >>> Virtualization is very tightly bound to the kernel, like it or > >>> not. So is profiling, power management and a few other things. > > > > It's a very simple point and observation: tools which integrate > > to the kernel so that they wouldnt even run on another kernel > > obviously are very natural to develop in tools/. > > Ah, very good. So all we need to do to prove the point that > kvm-tool doesn't belong in tools/ is port KVM to another OS and > make kvm-tool compile there too? Shouldn't be too hard. People > already have working ports of (old) KVM versions on FreeBSD and > Windows. Firstly, tools/kvm/ itself only works on Linux and it's developed in the kernel repo and we see many benefits of that model and are happy with it. Secondly, even your argument is rather inconsistent: by your argument what keeps KVM itself within the Linux kernel, if it's so portable to FreeBSD and Windows? By your argument all the virtio drivers should be moved out of the Linux kernel tree, to support both the FreeBSD, Windows and Linux KVM implementations. By your argument the arch/x86/ KVM disassembler should move out of the kernel tree, etc. etc. You cannot have it both ways really. So yes, i disagree with you rigid views about this, in reality what matters is the quality of the end result and the preferences of the developers. Just like i cannot (and should not) force you to develop in tools/qemu/, should you not try to force me to not develop in tools/kvm/. 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
