Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:32:59 -0800 | Subject | Re: kvmtool tree (Was: Re: [patch] config: fix make kvmconfig) |
| |
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > If you are asking whether it is critical for the kernel project > to have tools/kvm/ integrated then it isn't. The kernel will > live just fine without it, even if that decision is a mistake.
You go on to explain how this helps kvmtool, and quite frankly, I DO NOT CARE.
Everything you talk about is about helping your work, by making the kernel maintenance be more. The fact that you want to use kernel infrastructure in kvmtool is a great example: you may think it's a great thing, but for the kernel it's just extra work, and extra layers of abstraction etc etc.
And then you make it clear that you haven't even *bothered* to try to make it a separate project.
Sorry, but with that kind of approach, I get less and less interested. I think this whole tying together is a big mistake. It encourages linkages that simply shouldn't be there.
And no, perf is not the perfect counter-example. With perf,. the linkages made sense! There's supposed to be deep linkages to profiling and event counting. There is ABSOLUTELY NOT supposed to be deep linkages with virtualization. Quite the reverse.
And no, I don't want to maintain the mess that is both. There's just no gain, and lots of potential pain.
Linus
| |