From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755269Ab1KGL7p (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 06:59:45 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49301 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753311Ab1KGL7o (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 06:59:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:57:34 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , Pekka Enberg , Alexander Graf , Avi Kivity , Linus Torvalds , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , qemu-devel Developers , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico?= Wang , Blue Swirl Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels Message-ID: <20111107115734.GA30222@elte.hu> References: <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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Pekka Enberg wrote: > 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. Yep, and the answer i got from the Qemu folks when i suggested that merge was a polite "buzz off", along the lines of: "We don't want to do that, but feel free to write your own tool, leave Qemu alone." Now that people have done exactly that some Qemu folks not only have changed their objection from "write your own tool" to "erm, write your own tool but do it the way *we* prefer you to do it" - they also started contributing *against* the KVM tool with predictable, once every 3 months objections against its upstream merge... That's not very nice and not very constructive. The only valid technical objection against tools/kvm/ that i can see would be that it's not useful enough yet for the upstream kernel versus other tools such as Qemu. In all fairness i think we might still be at that early stage of the project but it's clearly progressing very rapidly and i'm already using it on a daily basis for my own kernel testing purposes. During the Kernel Summit that's how i tested contemporary kernels on contemporary user-space remotely, without having to risk a physical reboot. Thanks, Ingo