From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:09:09 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1320543320-32728-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4EB65C5B.8070709@redhat.com> <4EB66036.4080102@redhat.com> <1320577728.1428.73.camel@jaguar> <4EB67486.1070105@redhat.com> <4EB67D17.7000701@redhat.com> <4EB680D9.2070706@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-56-842249244 Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , qemu-devel Developers , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , Blue Swirl , Avi Kivity , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds To: Pekka Enberg Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org --Apple-Mail-56-842249244 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 06.11.2011, at 05:11, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> 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". >=20 > I think I've mentioned many times that I find the QEMU source terribly > difficult to read and hack on. So if you mean "not qemu" from that > point of view, sure, I think it's a very important point. The command > line interface is also "not qemu" for a very good reason too. That's a matter of taste. In fact, I like the QEMU source code for most = parts and there was a whole talk around it on LinuxCon where people = agreed that it was really easy to hack away with to prototype new = hardware: https://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-europe/waskiewicz As for all matters concerning taste, I don't think we would ever get to = a common ground here :). Alex --Apple-Mail-56-842249244 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On = Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> = wrote:
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".

I think = I've mentioned many times that I find the QEMU source = terribly
difficult to read and hack on. So if you mean "not qemu" = from that
point of view, sure, I think it's a very important point. = The command
line interface is also "not qemu" for a very good reason = too.

That's a matter of taste. = In fact, I like the QEMU source code for most parts and there was a = whole talk around it on LinuxCon where people agreed that it was really = easy to hack away with to prototype new = hardware:


As for all matters concerning taste, I = don't think we would ever get to a common ground here = :).


Alex

= = --Apple-Mail-56-842249244-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47612) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RN6Df-0003Vl-Sm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:09:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RN6De-0004aP-La for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:09:19 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52659 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RN6De-0004aL-Df for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:09:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-56-842249244 From: Alexander Graf In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:09:09 -0800 Message-Id: References: <1320543320-32728-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4EB65C5B.8070709@redhat.com> <4EB66036.4080102@redhat.com> <1320577728.1428.73.camel@jaguar> <4EB67486.1070105@redhat.com> <4EB67D17.7000701@redhat.com> <4EB680D9.2070706@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Pekka Enberg Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , qemu-devel Developers , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , Blue Swirl , Avi Kivity , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds --Apple-Mail-56-842249244 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 06.11.2011, at 05:11, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> 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". >=20 > I think I've mentioned many times that I find the QEMU source terribly > difficult to read and hack on. So if you mean "not qemu" from that > point of view, sure, I think it's a very important point. The command > line interface is also "not qemu" for a very good reason too. That's a matter of taste. In fact, I like the QEMU source code for most = parts and there was a whole talk around it on LinuxCon where people = agreed that it was really easy to hack away with to prototype new = hardware: https://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-europe/waskiewicz As for all matters concerning taste, I don't think we would ever get to = a common ground here :). Alex --Apple-Mail-56-842249244 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On = Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> = wrote:
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".

I think = I've mentioned many times that I find the QEMU source = terribly
difficult to read and hack on. So if you mean "not qemu" = from that
point of view, sure, I think it's a very important point. = The command
line interface is also "not qemu" for a very good reason = too.

That's a matter of taste. = In fact, I like the QEMU source code for most parts and there was a = whole talk around it on LinuxCon where people agreed that it was really = easy to hack away with to prototype new = hardware:


As for all matters concerning taste, I = don't think we would ever get to a common ground here = :).


Alex

= = --Apple-Mail-56-842249244--