Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> so right now the only option for a clean codebase is the KVM >>> in-kernel code. >>> >> I strongly disagree with this. >> > > are you disagreeing with my statement that the KVM kernel-side code is > the only clean codebase here? To me this is a clear fact :) >
No, I agree with that. I just disagree with choosing to put the *pic code (or other code) into the kernel on *that* basis. The selection should be on design/performance issues alone, *not* the state of existing code. > I only pointed out that the only clean codebase at the moment is the KVM > in-kernel code - i did not make the argument (at all) that every new > piece of KVM code should be done in the kernel. That would be stupid - > do you think i'd advocate for example moving command line argument > parsing into the kernel? > No. But the difference in cruftiness between kvm and qemu code should not enter into the discussion of where to do things. > and as i said in the mail: "the kernel _is_ the best place to do this > particular stuff". > I agree with this, maybe for different reasons. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
