Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754067AbZLVQVr (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:21:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753952AbZLVQVq (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:21:46 -0500 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.24]:51197 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753641AbZLVQVo (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:21:44 -0500 Message-ID: <4B30F214.80206@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:21:40 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz CC: Andi Kleen , Gregory Haskins , Avi Kivity , Ingo Molnar , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33 References: <4B1D4F29.8020309@gmail.com> <87637zdy9g.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4B30E654.40702@codemonkey.ws> <200912221701.56840.bzolnier@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200912221701.56840.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1214 Lines: 33 On 12/22/2009 10:01 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >> new e1000 driver is more superior in architecture and do the required >> work to make the new e1000 driver a full replacement for the old one. >> > Right, like everyone actually does things this way.. > > I wonder why do we have OSS, old Firewire and IDE stacks still around then? > And it's always a source of pain, isn't it. >>> I also personally don't see a big problem in having another set of >>> virtual drivers -- Linux already has plenty (vmware, xen, virtio, power, >>> s390-vm, ...) and it's not that they would be a particular maintenance >>> burden impacting the kernel core. >>> > Exactly, I also don't see any problem here, especially since AlacrityVM > drivers have much cleaner design / internal architecture than some of their > competitors.. > Care to provide some actual objective argument to why it's better than what we already have? Regards, Anthony Liguori -- 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/