Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756509AbZFCX3R (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:29:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754452AbZFCX3I (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:29:08 -0400 Received: from Cpsmtpm-eml108.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.12]:50357 "EHLO CPSMTPM-EML108.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754287AbZFCX3H (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:29:07 -0400 From: Frans Pop To: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: Xen is a feature Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:29:01 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com, davem@davemloft.net, jeremy@goop.org, mingo@elte.hu, dan.magenheimer@oracle.com, avi@redhat.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keir.Fraser@eu.citrix.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@suse.de, kurt.hackel@oracle.com, Ian.Pratt@eu.citrix.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com, ksrinivasan@novell.com, EAnderson@novell.com, wimcoekaerts@wimmekes.net, stephen.spector@citrix.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com References: <162f4c90-6431-4a2a-b337-6d7451d7b11e@default> <20090528001350.GD26820@elte.hu> <4A1F302E.8030501@goop.org> <20090528.210559.137121893.davem@davemloft.net> <4A1FCE8E.2060604@eu.citrix.com> <4A26D3D8.6080002@tmr.com> <4A26FB3B.6010205@tmr.com> In-reply-To: <4A26FB3B.6010205@tmr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906040129.07852.elendil@planet.nl> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2009 23:29:08.0344 (UTC) FILETIME=[17987780:01C9E4A3] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1607 Lines: 40 Bill Davidsen wrote: > I was referring to your "no benefit" comment, I don't dispute the > technical issues. I think the idea of moving the hypervisor into the > kernel and letting xen folks do the external parts as they please. Where does that come from? AFAICT Thomas never made a "no benefit" comment other than limited to the context of the technical implementation. I've always understood his meaning in this thread to be: "the proposed patch set does not improve the technical standard of the linux kernel, but would instead lower it considerably". Thomas has been extremely correct in this thread and IMO does not deserve this attack. Let's look at his exact comments (emphasis mine). ! The kernel policy always was and still is to accept only those ! features which have a technical benefit **to the code base**. and ! Aside of the paravirt, which seems to expand through arch/x86 like a ! hydra, the new patches sprinkle "if (xen_...)" all over the ! place. These extra xen dependencies are no improvement, they are a ! royal pain in the ... Also clearly limited to technical implementation. ! I really have a hard time to see why dom0 support makes Linux more ! useful **to people who do not use it**. It does not improve the Linux ! experience **of Joe User** at all. Or has Thomas made some "no benefit" comment I've missed? Cheers, FJP -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/