On 2011-11-04 17:13, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 03:42:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2011-11-04 14:32, Pekka Enberg wrote: >>> I know you don't see the benefits of integrated code base but I as a >>> developer do. >> >> IIRC, this discussion still lacks striking, concrete examples from the >> KVM tool vs. QEMU development processes. > > How does it matter? KVM tool does not compete with QEMU. I'm still under the impression that it will start to compete for the reference implementation of KVM changes. I might see ghosts, but I surely do not want to see this happen for many reasons. > The use cases for both programs are different. Really? > KVM tool is a helper for kernel > developers during development Well, 'make' is a helper for kernel development as well... > and additionally good example code on how > to use the KVM kernel interface (because it focuses on KVM only while > QEMU is much more than a KVM userspace). [ If this is architecturally good or bad would be worth a separate discussion. ] > Therefore it makes sense for KVM tool to be developed in the kernel tree > while it doesn't make sense for QEMU. And I disagree regarding KVM tool based on the arguments brought forward so far. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
