On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:06:56AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010, William Pitcock wrote: > > > That was opposed quite strongly by the kernel folks last time it was > > > attempted. Were there any fundamental changes in the Xen dom0 patches > > > since then? > > > > Only by the kernel folks which believe all of the crap that the KVM > > guys say about Xen. There are plenty of kernel developers willing > > to see the patches merged. > > Hmm, you have a problem there. > > Linus is very likely going to cheerfully tell the Xen and KVM developers to > duke it out in a bloodbath, and to not forget to bring AlacrityVM into the > fray either. He could care less for virtualization, and he is likely to > refuse to merge anything non-trivial until the "virtualization crazy people" > manage to reach a consensus on a sane API. Look for the AlacrityVM threads > in LKML if you doubt me. >
Then again the KVM vs. AlacrityVM discussion is a bit different. AlacrityVM is a fork of KVM.. > Note: I am not defending KVM. I don't agree with their main ideology (that > their hardware-emulating approach is the One True Way). But I can well see > why Linus decided to take that instance. > > Xen's track record from hell on getting their act cleaned up for upstream > merging is also going to get in the way. Some people have long memories. > Linus has been happily accepting a lot of Xen pv_ops (domU) patches from Jeremy lately.. So it seems to be mostly about the 'quality' of the code. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
