On 11/06/2011 02:32 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But from your description, you're trying to solve just another narrow > > problem: > > > > "The end game for me is to replace QEMU/VirtualBox for Linux on Linux > > virtualization for my day to day purposes. " > > > > We rarely merge a subsystem to solve one person's problem (esp. when it > > is defined as "replace another freely available project", even if you > > dislike its command line syntax). > > I really don't understand your point. Other people are using the KVM > tool for other purposes. For example, the (crazy) simulation guys are > using the tool to launch even more guests on a single host and Ingo > seems to be using the tool to test kernels. > > I'm not suggesting we should merge the tool because of my particular > use case. I'm simply saying the problem I personally want to solve > with the KVM tool is broader than what Alexander's script is doing. > That's why I feel it's a pointless project. We're going in circles, but I'll try again. You say that kvm-tool's scope is broader than Alex's script, therefore the latter is pointless. You accept that qemu's scope is broader than kvm-tool (and is a superset). That is why many people think kvm-tool is pointless. Alex's script, though, is just a few dozen lines. kvm-tool is a 20K patch - in fact 2X as large as kvm when it was first merged. And it's main feature seems to be that "it is not qemu". -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
