From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754807Ab1KGLos (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 06:44:48 -0500 Received: from mail-vx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:33402 "EHLO mail-vx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753232Ab1KGLor (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 06:44:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4EB7BACA.70006@redhat.com> 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> <877C82F4-F07C-44AA-8722-3AF57CFC4597@suse.de> <4EB7B1A9.9000409@redhat.com> <4EB7BACA.70006@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:44:46 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UieqlXBKfBnz2wpnCNR9CiF1Q04 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels From: Pekka Enberg To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Sasha Levin , Gerd Hoffmann , Blue Swirl , "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , Alexander Graf , qemu-devel Developers , Avi Kivity , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds 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 Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Indeed I do not see any advantage, since all the interfaces they use are > stable anyway (sysfs, msr.ko). > > If they had gone in x86info, for example, my distro (F16, not exactly > conservative) would have likely picked those tools up already, but it > didn't. Distributing userspace tools in the kernel tree is a relatively new concept so it's not at all surprising distributions don't pick them up as quickly. That doesn't mean it's a fundamentally flawed approach, though. Also, I'm mostly interested in defending the KVM tool, so I'd prefer not to argue whether or not carrying userspace code in the kernel tree makes sense or not. The fact is that Linux is already doing it and I think the only relevant question is whether or not the KVM tool qualifies. I obviously think the answer is yes. Pekka From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:44:46 +0200 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> <877C82F4-F07C-44AA-8722-3AF57CFC4597@suse.de> <4EB7B1A9.9000409@redhat.com> <4EB7BACA.70006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , qemu-devel Developers , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , Alexander Graf , Blue Swirl , Sasha Levin , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Avi Kivity , Gerd Hoffmann To: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4EB7BACA.70006@redhat.com> 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 On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Indeed I do not see any advantage, since all the interfaces they use are > stable anyway (sysfs, msr.ko). > > If they had gone in x86info, for example, my distro (F16, not exactly > conservative) would have likely picked those tools up already, but it > didn't. Distributing userspace tools in the kernel tree is a relatively new concept so it's not at all surprising distributions don't pick them up as quickly. That doesn't mean it's a fundamentally flawed approach, though. Also, I'm mostly interested in defending the KVM tool, so I'd prefer not to argue whether or not carrying userspace code in the kernel tree makes sense or not. The fact is that Linux is already doing it and I think the only relevant question is whether or not the KVM tool qualifies. I obviously think the answer is yes. Pekka From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38520) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNNdA-0000JN-BZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 06:44:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNNd9-0002wE-8t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 06:44:48 -0500 Received: from mail-vx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]:40439) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNNd9-0002wA-5P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 06:44:47 -0500 Received: by vcbf13 with SMTP id f13so3548588vcb.4 for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:44:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: penberg@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <4EB7BACA.70006@redhat.com> 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> <877C82F4-F07C-44AA-8722-3AF57CFC4597@suse.de> <4EB7B1A9.9000409@redhat.com> <4EB7BACA.70006@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:44:46 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: Paolo Bonzini Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , qemu-devel Developers , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , Alexander Graf , Blue Swirl , Sasha Levin , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Avi Kivity , Gerd Hoffmann On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Indeed I do not see any advantage, since all the interfaces they use are > stable anyway (sysfs, msr.ko). > > If they had gone in x86info, for example, my distro (F16, not exactly > conservative) would have likely picked those tools up already, but it > didn't. Distributing userspace tools in the kernel tree is a relatively new concept so it's not at all surprising distributions don't pick them up as quickly. That doesn't mean it's a fundamentally flawed approach, though. Also, I'm mostly interested in defending the KVM tool, so I'd prefer not to argue whether or not carrying userspace code in the kernel tree makes sense or not. The fact is that Linux is already doing it and I think the only relevant question is whether or not the KVM tool qualifies. I obviously think the answer is yes. Pekka