* Avi Kivity <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/18/2010 10:56 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Avi Kivity<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>On 03/17/2010 10:10 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>>It's about who owns the user interface.
> >>>>
> >>>>If qemu owns the user interface, than we can satisfy this in a very
> >>>>simple way by adding a perf monitor command. If we have to support third
> >>>>party tools, then it significantly complicates things.
> >>>Of course illogical modularization complicates things 'significantly'.
> >>Who should own the user interface then?
> >If qemu was in tools/kvm/ then we wouldnt have such issues. A single patch
> >(or
> >series of patches) could modify tools/kvm/, arch/x86/kvm/, virt/ and
> >tools/perf/.
>
> We would have exactly the same issues, only they would be in a single
> repository. The only difference is that we could ignore potential
> alternatives to qemu, libvirt, and RHEV-M. But that's not how kernel ABIs
> are developed, we try to make them general, not suited to just one consumer
> that happens to be close to our heart.
Not at all - as i replied to in a previous mail, tools/perf/ still has a clear
userspace interface and ABI, and external projects are making use of it.
So there's no problem with the ABI at all.
In fact our experience has been the opposite: the perf ABI is markedly better
_because_ there's an immediate consumer of it in the form of tools/perf/. It
gets tested better and external projects can get their ABI tweaks in as well
and can provide a reference implementation for tools/perf. This has happened a
couple of times. It's a win-win scenario.
So the exact opposite of what you suggest is happening in practice.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
