From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752764Ab3BIKB2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2013 05:01:28 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:62773 "EHLO mail-wg0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752559Ab3BIKBO (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2013 05:01:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20130204184436.GA13256@gmail.com> <20130204191408.GA32081@kroah.com> <20130204191334.GB14837@gmail.com> <20130207080236.ae38366537cf3f13b9668606@canb.auug.org.au> <20130206214646.GA28135@gmail.com> <20130208084029.d7d97d6e26580a5512712f91@canb.auug.org.au> <20130208145539.GC30334@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:01:13 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nI-RLjBGmsSqEKLe21wAev1iSnE Message-ID: Subject: Re: kvmtool tree (Was: Re: [patch] config: fix make kvmconfig) From: Pekka Enberg To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , Stephen Rothwell , David Rientjes , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sasha Levin , Randy Dunlap , David Woodhouse , Michal Marek , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Quite frankly, that's just optimizing for the wrong case. I obviously don't agree. I'm fairly sure there wouldn't be a kvmtool that supports x86, PPC64, ARM, and all the virtio drivers had we not optimized for making development for kernel folks easy. In fact that's something Ingo pushed for pretty hard early on and we also worked hard just to make the code 'feel familiar' to kernel folks. The assumption was that if we did that, we'd see contributions from people who would normally not write userspace code. On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The merged case seems to make sense for you and Ingo, and nobody else. That's hardly surprising. I'm the only person who was crazy enough to listen to Ingo and follow through with the damn thing. So I either have the same experience and perspective as Ingo does on the matter - or I'm just as full of 'bullshit' as he is. On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The only thing the lock-step does is to generate the kind of > dependency that I ABSOLUTELY DETEST, where one version of kvmtools > goes along with one version of the kernel. That is simply NOT TRUE. We have never done such a thing with 'kvmtool' nor I have any evidence that 'perf' has done that either. I regularily run old versions to make sure that we stay that way. On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So you can't have it both ways. What's so wrong with just making it a > separate project? Do you really think it's an option I have not considered several times? There are the immediate practical problems: - What code should we take with us from the Linux repository. If I take just tools/kvm, it won't even build. - Where do we do our development? Right now we are using the KVM list and are part of tip tree workflow. As a separate project, we need to build the kind of infrastructure we already are relying on now. Then there are the long term issues: - How do we keep up with KVM and virtio improvements? - How do we ensure we get improvements that happened in the kernel tree to our codebase for the code we share? - How do we make it easy for future KVM and virtio developers to access our code? If you want perspective on this just ask Ingo sometime how he feels about making tools/perf a separate project (which I have actually done). Much of the *practical* aspects applies to tools/kvm. And really, I'm a practical kind of guy. Why do you think I'm willing to bang to my head to the wall if spinning off as a separate project would be as simple as you seem to think it is? Pekka