On Friday, April 8, 2011, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08.04.2011, at 12:42, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 2011-04-08 11:32, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >>> It seems there is a misunderstanding. KVM-tool is quite far from been KVM >>> replacement (if ever). And what we're doing -- extremely tiny/small HV which >>> would help us to debug/test kernel code. >> >> I think your core team may have this vision, but my impression is that >> some people here think much further. > > I tend to agree. The core team seems to write this as a helping aid of > learning the platform and getting to know KVM. I really like that approach :). > > However, if it's meant to be a "toy" (and I don't mean this negatively in any > way), it really should be declared as such. Calling it "kvm" for example > would be a huge mistake in that case. > > Either way, I like the idea of having a second user space available for x86. > Even if it just means that it verifies that the documentation is correct :). > > > Alex > >
If we manage to make kvm-tool mature i believe anyone will win in such case. The annonce stated clear the kvm-tool relation to qemu. Of course we have great planes tho :) -- 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
