Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752030AbZLWSwd (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:52:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751310AbZLWSwc (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:52:32 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43932 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221AbZLWSwb (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:52:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:51:50 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: Anthony Liguori , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Gregory Haskins , Avi Kivity , 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 Message-ID: <20091223185150.GA9587@elte.hu> References: <4B1D4F29.8020309@gmail.com> <87637zdy9g.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4B30E654.40702@codemonkey.ws> <200912221701.56840.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B30F214.80206@codemonkey.ws> <20091223065129.GA19600@elte.hu> <20091223101340.GC20539@basil.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091223101340.GC20539@basil.fritz.box> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1707 Lines: 37 * Andi Kleen wrote: > > - Are a pure software concept and any compatibility mismatch is > > self-inflicted. The patches are in fact breaking the ABI to KVM > > In practice, especially considering older kernel releases, VMs behave like > hardware, with all its quirks, compatibility requirements, sometimes not > fully understood, etc. I stopped reading your reply here. That's not actually fully true of KVM, at all. Virtualization isnt voodoo magic with some hidden souce in some magic hardware component that no-one can understand fully. This isnt some mystic hardware vendor coming up with some code and going away in the next quarter, with barely anything documented and thousands of users left with hardware components which we need to support under Linux somehow. This is Linux virtualization, where _both_ the host and the guest source code is fully known, and bugs (if any) can be found with a high degree of determinism. This is Linux where the players dont just vanish overnight, and are expected to do a proper job. Yes, there's (obviously) compatibility requirements and artifacts and past mistakes (as with any software interface), but you need to admit it to yourself that your "virtualization is sloppy just like hardware" claim is just a cheap excuse to not do a proper job of interface engineering. Thanks, Ingo -- 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/