From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753482Ab0CRR2R (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:28:17 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:48070 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752745Ab0CRR2P (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:28:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:28:05 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Avi Kivity Cc: Pekka Enberg , Anthony Liguori , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , Sheng Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , oerg Roedel , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , ziteng.huang@intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project Message-ID: <20100318172805.GB26067@elte.hu> References: <4BA21B09.6060706@redhat.com> <20100318130047.GA7424@elte.hu> <4BA23FE1.5050402@codemonkey.ws> <20100318151737.GA2875@elte.hu> <4BA250BF.80704@codemonkey.ws> <20100318162853.GB447@elte.hu> <4BA256FE.5080501@codemonkey.ws> <84144f021003180951s5207de16p1cdf4b9b04040222@mail.gmail.com> <20100318170223.GB9756@elte.hu> <4BA25E66.2050800@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BA25E66.2050800@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/18/2010 07:02 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > I find the 'KVM mostly cares about the server, not about the desktop' > > attitude expressed in this thread troubling. > > It's not kvm, just it's developers (and their employers, where applicable). > If you post desktop oriented patches I'm sure they'll be welcome. Just such a patch-set was posted in this very thread: 'perf kvm'. There were two negative reactions immediately, both showed a fundamental server versus desktop bias: - you did not accept that the most important usecase is when there is a single guest running. - the reaction to the 'how do we get symbols out of the guest' sub-question was, paraphrased: 'we dont want that due to security threat to XYZ selinux usecase with lots of guests'. Anyone being aware of how Linux and KVM is being used on the desktop will know how detached that attitude is from the typical desktop usecase ... Usability _never_ sucks because of lack of patches or lack of suggestions. I bet if you made the next server feature contingent on essential usability fixes they'd happen overnight - for God's sake there's been 1000 commits in the last 3 months in the Qemu repository so there's plenty of manpower... Usability suckage - and i'm not going to be popular for saying this out loud - almost always shows a basic maintainer disconnect with the real world. See your very first reactions to my 'KVM usability' observations. Read back your and Anthony's replies: total 'sure, patches welcome' kind of indifference. It is _your project_, not some other project down the road ... So that is my first-hand experience about how you are welcoming these desktop issues, in this very thread. I suspect people try a few times with suggestions, then get shot down like our suggestions were shot down and then give up. Ingo