From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754587Ab1KGLfJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 06:35:09 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:58955 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753543Ab1KGLfI (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 06:35:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:34:51 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Enberg X-X-Sender: penberg@tux.localdomain To: Gerd Hoffmann cc: Pekka Enberg , Alexander Graf , Avi Kivity , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , qemu-devel Developers , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Blue Swirl Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels In-Reply-To: <4EB7B1A9.9000409@redhat.com> 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> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> It's not just about code, it's as much about culture and development process. > > Indeed. The BSDs have both kernel and the base system in a single > repository. There are probably good reasons for (and against) it. > > In Linux we don't have that culture. No tool (except perf) lives in the > kernel repo. I fail to see why kvm-tool is that much different from > udev, util-linux, iproute, filesystem tools, that it should be included. You seem to think perf is an exception - I think it's going to be the future norm for userspace components that are very close to the kernel. That's in fact what Ingo was arguing for when he suggested QEMU to be merged to the kernel tree. Pekka From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57256) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNNTv-0005HQ-V6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 06:35:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNNTo-0001Sr-1m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 06:35:15 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:64434) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNNTn-0001SJ-Nm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 06:35:08 -0500 Received: by bkbzu5 with SMTP id zu5so4102219bkb.4 for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:35:06 -0800 (PST) Sender: Pekka Enberg Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:34:51 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Enberg In-Reply-To: <4EB7B1A9.9000409@redhat.com> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: Blue Swirl , "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , qemu-devel Developers , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , Alexander Graf , Pekka Enberg , Avi Kivity , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> It's not just about code, it's as much about culture and development process. > > Indeed. The BSDs have both kernel and the base system in a single > repository. There are probably good reasons for (and against) it. > > In Linux we don't have that culture. No tool (except perf) lives in the > kernel repo. I fail to see why kvm-tool is that much different from > udev, util-linux, iproute, filesystem tools, that it should be included. You seem to think perf is an exception - I think it's going to be the future norm for userspace components that are very close to the kernel. That's in fact what Ingo was arguing for when he suggested QEMU to be merged to the kernel tree. Pekka