|
From: | Rick Vernam |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] Killing KQEMU |
Date: | Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:45:18 -0500 |
User-agent: | KMail/1.11.3 (Linux/2.6.28.9; KDE/4.2.3; x86_64; ; ) |
On Monday 01 June 2009 10:52:17 pm Chris Frey wrote: > Hi, > > I feel that I should post here, for the simple reason that most QEMU > users likely don't read this list, and have no idea that developers are > striving to kill off a valued feature. > > This is a very valuable feature to me, as one of those users, and I find > it sad to read the eagerness some have at getting rid of it. Not everyone > has access to the most modern hardware. And not all hardware is worth > throwing out just because it doesn't have a CPU capable of virtualization. I haven't seen anything that I consider eagerness to get rid of KQemu, perhaps you've read something off list or I've missed something on list? I am curious. I understand that KQemu is perhaps sub-optimal in some or many ways, and/or abandoned. Does keeping the KQemu-supporting bits in Qemu cause some hindrance in developing other features? > I read excuses such as "it's not documented" and "nobody understands it" > and "there's no maintainer", but in a project such as QEMU, that is nearly > 500,000 lines of code, the KQEMU kernel module clocks in, for linux, > at a whopping 674 lines. > > I find it hard to believe that these 674 lines of code are too much for > the substantial braintrust available on this list. > > Wasn't KQEMU written in the first place to be small, auditable, and > secure? What has changed that it is now such a burden? > > Thanks, > - Chris |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |