From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:11:33 +0200 Message-ID: <4BA67D75.8060809__11628.7173158073$1269202378$gmane$org@redhat.com> References: <4BA256FE.5080501@codemonkey.ws> <84144f021003180951s5207de16p1cdf4b9b04040222@mail.gmail.com> <20100318170223.GB9756@elte.hu> <4BA25E66.2050800@redhat.com> <20100318172805.GB26067@elte.hu> <4BA32E1A.2060703@redhat.com> <20100319085346.GG12576@elte.hu> <4BA3747F.60401@codemonkey.ws> <20100321191742.GD25922@elte.hu> <4BA67B2F.4030101@redhat.com> <20100321200849.GA51323@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Olivier Galibert , Ingo Molnar , Anthony Liguori , Pekka Enberg , "Zhang, Yanmin" Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42445 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752646Ab0CUUMS (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:12:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100321200849.GA51323@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/21/2010 10:08 PM, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:01:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 03/21/2010 09:17 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >>> Adding any new daemon to an existing guest is a deployment and usability >>> nightmare. >>> >>> >> The logical conclusion of that is that everything should be built into >> the kernel. Where a failure brings the system down or worse. Where you >> have to bear the memory footprint whether you ever use the functionality >> or not. Where to update the functionality you need to deploy a new >> kernel (possibly introducing unrelated bugs) and reboot. >> >> If userspace daemons are such a deployment and usability nightmare, >> maybe we should fix that instead. >> > Which userspace? Deploying *anything* in the guest can be a > nightmare, including paravirt drivers if you don't have a natively > supported in the OS virtual hardware backoff. That includes the guest kernel. If you can deploy a new kernel in the guest, presumably you can deploy a userspace package. > Deploying things in the > host OTOH is business as usual. > True. > And you're smart enough to know that. > Thanks. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.