|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-kernel.org> |
|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Re: kvmtool tree (Was: Re: [patch] config: fix make kvmconfig) |
|| ||Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:56:27 +0100|
|| ||Pekka Enberg <penberg-AT-kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-AT-linux.intel.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap-AT-infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes-AT-google.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2-AT-infradead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh-AT-linuxfoundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928-AT-gmail.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-AT-zytor.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek-AT-suse.cz>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr-AT-canb.auug.org.au>|
|| ||Article, Thread
* Ingo Molnar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> - he ended up gradually validating whether lockdep could be
> ported to user-space. He first used 'messy' integration:
> kernel/lockdep.c hacked up badly and linked directly into
> user-space app. Then he did 'clean' integration: some
> modifications to kernel/lockdep.c enabled it to be
> librarified, and then the remaining work was done in
> user-space - here too in successive steps.
> - tools/kvm/ happened to be hosted in the same kernel repo
> that the locking tree is hosted in.
> The end result is something good that I never saw happen to
> kernel code before, in the last 20 years of the Linux kernel.
> Maybe it could have happened with an outside tools/kvm repo,
> but I very strongly suspect that it would not.
> In theory this could have been done in the cold, fragmented,
> isolated and desolate landscape of Linux user-space utilities,
> by copying kernel/lockdep.c and a handful of kernel headers to
> user-space, and making it work there somehow.
> Just like a blue rose could in theory grow on Antarctica as
> well, given the right set of circumstances. It just so happens
> that blue roses best grow in Holland, where there's good
> support infrastructure for growing green stuff, while you'd
> have to look hard to find any green stuff at all on
To use another, perhaps more applicable analogy:
If one has the choice to start a new business in the U.S., it
would be reasonable to do that. There's a lot of supporting
infrastructure, trust, distribution, standards, enforcement
agencies and available workers.
Could the same business succeed in Somalia as well? Possibly -
if it's a bakery or something similarly fundamental. More
complex businesses would likely not thrive very well there.
*That* is how I think the current Linux kernel tooling landscape
looks like currently in a fair number of places: in many aspects
it's similar to Somalia - disjunct entities with not much
commonality or shared infrastructure.
Why people question the desire for a kernel related project
(that only runs on a Linux host) to actually be part of an
already well working, civilized society (the kernel repo) - for
mutual, well documented benefits - instead of having to grow it
all itself, is rather perplexing to me...
to post comments)