On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 17:49 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jul 20 2007 14:22, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >Subject: [PATCH] Move KVM, paravirt, lguest,
> > VMI and Xen under arch-level Virtualization option
> >
> >Any objections?
>
> Well btw, would it make sens
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 17:49 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jul 20 2007 14:22, Rusty Russell wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] Move KVM, paravirt, lguest,
VMI and Xen under arch-level Virtualization option
Any objections?
Well btw, would it make sense to also rearrange the directory structure
On Jul 20 2007 14:22, Rusty Russell wrote:
>Subject: [PATCH] Move KVM, paravirt, lguest,
> VMI and Xen under arch-level Virtualization option
>
>Any objections?
Well btw, would it make sense to also rearrange the directory structure along
with it, i.e.
drivers/kvm=> d
On Jul 20 2007 14:22, Rusty Russell wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] Move KVM, paravirt, lguest,
VMI and Xen under arch-level Virtualization option
Any objections?
Well btw, would it make sense to also rearrange the directory structure along
with it, i.e.
drivers/kvm= drivers/virt/kvm
drivers
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:10:54PM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> I'm rather indifferent on the matter, but I think a virtualization menu
> under UML would be very confusing.
Yeah, that would be interesting. Trying to get one menu, with
switches that the arch can turn on and off, seems to make
Rusty Russell wrote:
Otherwise we end up with $NARCH copies of that Kconfig, each slightly
different. The top-level entry can be made to depend on the archs that
actually have some virt capability, so as not to show empty an menu.
I dislike the duplication, too, but
1) it's a CPU
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 08:24 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Any objections?
> >
> > Rusty.
> > ===
> > Having KVM appear in the middle of "drivers" is kinda strange, and
> > having it alone under a menu called "virtualization" doubly so.
> >
> > 1) Move the "Virtualization"
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:10:54PM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
I'm rather indifferent on the matter, but I think a virtualization menu
under UML would be very confusing.
Yeah, that would be interesting. Trying to get one menu, with
switches that the arch can turn on and off, seems to make
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 08:24 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Any objections?
Rusty.
===
Having KVM appear in the middle of drivers is kinda strange, and
having it alone under a menu called virtualization doubly so.
1) Move the Virtualization menu into the
Rusty Russell wrote:
Otherwise we end up with $NARCH copies of that Kconfig, each slightly
different. The top-level entry can be made to depend on the archs that
actually have some virt capability, so as not to show empty an menu.
I dislike the duplication, too, but
1) it's a CPU
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Any objections?
>
> Rusty.
> ===
> Having KVM appear in the middle of "drivers" is kinda strange, and
> having it alone under a menu called "virtualization" doubly so.
>
> 1) Move the "Virtualization" menu into the arch-specific i386 and
>x86-64 Kconfig.
>
On 7/20/07, Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any objections?
Rusty.
===
Having KVM appear in the middle of "drivers" is kinda strange, and
having it alone under a menu called "virtualization" doubly so.
Hi Rusty !
Very good move, that I have thought about too... I believe that since
Any objections?
Rusty.
===
Having KVM appear in the middle of "drivers" is kinda strange, and
having it alone under a menu called "virtualization" doubly so.
1) Move the "Virtualization" menu into the arch-specific i386 and
x86-64 Kconfig.
2) Add a help message to the menu.
3) Move
Any objections?
Rusty.
===
Having KVM appear in the middle of drivers is kinda strange, and
having it alone under a menu called virtualization doubly so.
1) Move the Virtualization menu into the arch-specific i386 and
x86-64 Kconfig.
2) Add a help message to the menu.
3) Move CONFIG_PARAVIRT
On 7/20/07, Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any objections?
Rusty.
===
Having KVM appear in the middle of drivers is kinda strange, and
having it alone under a menu called virtualization doubly so.
Hi Rusty !
Very good move, that I have thought about too... I believe that since
we're
Rusty Russell wrote:
Any objections?
Rusty.
===
Having KVM appear in the middle of drivers is kinda strange, and
having it alone under a menu called virtualization doubly so.
1) Move the Virtualization menu into the arch-specific i386 and
x86-64 Kconfig.
Virtualization is hardly
16 matches
Mail list logo
