On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:58:20PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > Ted, I'm confused. Making backwards incompatible ABI changes has never > > been on the table. Why are you bringing it up? > > And btw, KVM tool is not a random userspace project - it was designed > to live in tools/kvm from the beginning. I've explained the technical > rationale for sharing kernel code here: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/4/150 > > Please also see Ingo's original rant that started the project: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/962051/focus=962620 Because I don't buy any of these arguments. We have the same kernel developers working on xfs and xfsprogs, ext4 and e2fsprogs, btrfs and btrfsprogs, and we don't have those userspace projects in the kernel source tree. The only excuse I can see is a hope to make random changes to the kernel and userspace tools without having to worry about compatibility problems, which is an argument I've seen with perf (that you have to use the same version of perf as the kernel version, which to me is bad software engineering). And that's why I pointed out that you can't do that with KVM, since we have out-of-tree userspace users, namely qemu-kvm. The rest of the arguments are arguments for a new effort, which is fine --- but not an excuse for putting in the kernel source tree. - Ted -- 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
