Hi Avi,
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/06/2011 03:06 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > You say that kvm-tool's scope is broader than Alex's script, therefore
>> > the latter is pointless.
>>
>> I'm saying that Alex's script is pointless because it's not attempting
>> to fix the real issues. For example, we're trying to make make it as
>> easy as possible to setup a guest and to be able to access guest data
>> from the host.
>
> Have you tried virt-install/virt-manager?
No, I don't use virtio-manager. I know a lot of people do which is why
someone is working on KVM tool libvirt integration.
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Sure. I think it's mostly people that are interested in non-Linux
>> virtualization that think the KVM tool is a pointless project.
>> However, some people (including myself) think the KVM tool is a more
>> usable and hackable tool than QEMU for Linux virtualization.
>
> More hackable, certainly, as any 20kloc project will be compared to a
> 700+kloc project with a long history. More usable, I really doubt
> this. You take it for granted that people want to run their /boot
> kernels in a guest, but in fact only kernel developers (and testers)
> want this. The majority want the real guest kernel.
Our inability to boot ISO images, for example, is a usability
limitation, sure. I'm hoping to fix that at some point.
>> The difference here is that although I feel Alex's script is a
>> pointless project, I'm in no way opposed to merging it in the tree if
>> people use it and it solves their problem. Some people seem to be
>> violently opposed to merging the KVM tool and I'm having difficult
>> time understanding why that is.
>
> One of the reasons is that if it is merge, anyone with a #include
> <linux/foo.h> will line up for the next merge window, wanting in. The
> other is that anything in the Linux source tree might gain an unfair
> advantage over out-of-tree projects (at least that's how I read Jan's
> comment).
Well, having gone through the process of getting something included so
far, I'm not at all worried that there's going to be a huge queue of
"#include <linux/foo.h>" projects if we get in...
What kind of unfair advantage are you referring to? I've specifically
said that the only way for KVM tool to become a reference
implementation would be that the KVM maintainers take the tool through
their tree. As that's not going to happen, I don't see what the
problem would be.
Pekka
--
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
