> > Mainly because the kernel already has one perfectly good virtualization > > interface. There's very little motivation to add another incompatible > > one, especially when the implementation is known to be fundamentally > > flawed, and probably insecure. > > > > If you really want to get it merged I suggest modifying kqemu to use the > > kvm interface, augmenting the kvm interface if necessary. > > Are you referring to the API when you say interface, or the > functionality itself? If the former that's a reasonable argument, but > the latter is not valid since KVM requires a VT or AMD-V-capable > processor, right? KQEMU does not, and therefore [today] works on a > much larger installed base of hardware.
Yes, I mean the API. However in practice you'd probably want to try and share the implementation as well. In short it's likely to need rewriting before it's acceptable upstream. Paul P.S. Please don't top-post. Consider this your final warning.
