Re: [Qemu-devel] merging kqemu into mainline kernel?

[Leonardo Reiter]

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.  Unless I am misunderstanding
something?

- Leo Reiter

On 8/16/07, Paul Brook <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thursday 16 August 2007, dragoran wrote:
> > Bill C. Riemers wrote:
> > > You don't need to compile kqemu into the kernel.  When I install
> > > dkms-kqemu from freshrpms, I do NOT rebuild my kernel.  I am fairly
> > > certain with Fedora's new policy for extras, there would not be much
> > > of a problem getting it added to Fedora.  For that matter, it could
> > > probably get added into the new Enterprise Extra's repository as
> > > well.  However, someone would need to volunteer to maintain the package.
> >
> > no thats not true fedora want to change the policy about out of tree
> > modules the want to drop all kmod-* packages and only allow modules into
> > the kernel rpm that are upstream or about to get merged upstream.
> > anyway why has kqemu to be a out of tree module?
>
> 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.
>
> Paul
>
>
>