On 11/06/2011 06:35 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
The difference here is that although I feel Alex's script is a
pointless project, I'm in no way opposed to merging it in the tree if
people use it and it solves their problem. Some people seem to be
violently opposed to merging the KVM tool and I'm having difficult
time understanding why that is.
One of the reasons is that if it is merge, anyone with a #include
<linux/foo.h> will line up for the next merge window, wanting in. The
other is that anything in the Linux source tree might gain an unfair
advantage over out-of-tree projects (at least that's how I read Jan's
comment).
Well, having gone through the process of getting something included so
far, I'm not at all worried that there's going to be a huge queue of
"#include<linux/foo.h>" projects if we get in...
What kind of unfair advantage are you referring to? I've specifically
said that the only way for KVM tool to become a reference
implementation would be that the KVM maintainers take the tool through
their tree. As that's not going to happen, I don't see what the
problem would be.
I'm not personally worried about it either (though in fact a *minimal*
reference implementation might not be a bad idea). There's the risk of
getting informed in-depth press reviews ("Linux KVM Takes A Step Back
From Running Windows Guests"), or of unfairly drawing developers away
from competing projects.