From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932559Ab3BIT6I (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:58:08 -0500 Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com ([209.85.212.44]:40730 "EHLO mail-vb0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932504Ab3BIT6D (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:58:03 -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> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 06:57:41 +1100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: S7gaq_X_riMCuFezPxNDE047POY Message-ID: Subject: Re: kvmtool tree (Was: Re: [patch] config: fix make kvmconfig) To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" , Randy Dunlap , Thomas Gleixner , David Rientjes , David Woodhouse , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sasha Levin , "H. Peter Anvin" , Michal Marek , Stephen Rothwell , Ingo Molnar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > The main argument for merging into the main kernel repository has always been > that (we think) it improves the kernel because significant amount of > development is directly linked to kernel code (think KVM ARM port here, for > example). The secondary argument has been to make it easy for kernel developers > to work on both userspace and kernel in tandem (like has happened with vhost > drivers). In short: it speeds up development of Linux virtualization code. Why? You've made this statement over and over and over again, and I've dismissed it over and over and over again because I simply don't think it's true. It's simply a statement with nothing to back it up. Why repeat it? THAT is my main contention. I told you why I think it's actually actively untrue. You claim it helps, but what is it about kvmtool that makes it so magically helpful to be inside the kernel repository? What is it about this that makes it so critical that you get the kernel and kvmtool with a single pull, and they have to be in sync? When you then at the same time claim that you make very sure that they don't have to be in sync at all. See your earlier emails about how you claim to have worked very hard to make sure they work across different versions. So you make these unsubstantiated claims about how much easier it is, and they make no sense. You never explain *why* it's so magically easier. Is git so hard to use that you can't do "git pull" twice? And why would you normally even *want* to do git pull twice? 99% of the work in the kernel has nothing what-so-ever to do with kvmtool, and hopefully the reverse is equally true. And tying into the kernel just creates this myopic world of only looking at the current kernel. What if somebody decides that they actually want to try to boot Windows with kvmtool? What if somebody tells you that they are really tired of Xen, and actually want to turn kvmtool into *replacement* for Xen instead? What if somebody wants to branch off their own work, concentrating on some other issue entirely, and wants to merge with upstream kvmtool but not worry about the kernel, because they aren't working on the Linux kernel at all, and their work is about something else? I just don't think it makes sense. I don't see what the huge advantage of a single git tree is. Anyway, I'm done arguing. You can do what you want, but just stop misrepresenting it as being "linux-next" material unless you are willing to actually explain why it should be so. Linus