On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:24:12AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:08:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Fact is that developing ABIs within an integrated project is
> > *amazingly* powerful. You should try it one day, instead of
> > criticizing it :-)
>
> I've been
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:03:32AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> It's very hard to understand. It's similar to religion - I could
> easily apply your point to every reasonably low-level user space
> project out there. X for example. X needs to interact with KMS and
> DRI and whatdoiknow. So it'd b
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:33:33AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Examples: X11 and GCC - both were struggling for years to break through magic
> invisible barriers of growth and IMHO a lot of it had to do with the lack of
> code (and development model) cleanliness.
A large part of what's killing X
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 12:03:41PM -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
> But, Anthony's point ('there's never really been a pressing need to
> support SMM') is probably the most important here, as I can't see a
> compelling use for SMM in QEMU.
Running real biosen instead of seabios? Of course that's mos
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 09:00:43AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Really, having a flat table doesn't make sense. You should just send
> everything to an i440fx directly. Then the i440fx should decode what it
> can, and send it to the next level, and so forth.
No you shouldn't. The i440fx sh
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:19:04PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> Implementing a virtualized DRM/KMS driver would at least get you the
> framebuffer interface more or less for free, while allowing you to deal
> with the userspace side of things incrementally (ie, running a dummy xorg
> on top of the vi
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:01:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/21/2010 09:17 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >Adding any new daemon to an existing guest is a deployment and usability
> >nightmare.
> >
>
> The logical conclusion of that is that everything should be built into
> the kernel. W
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:54:37PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Yes, i thought Qemu would be a prime candidate to be the baseline for
> tools/kvm/, but i guess that has become socially impossible now after this
> flamewar. It's not a big problem in the big scheme of things: tools/kvm/ is
> best g
