Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1
[Posted August 23, 2011 by corbet]
| From: |
| Alexander Graf <agraf-AT-suse.de> |
| To: |
| Pekka Enberg <penberg-AT-kernel.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1 |
| Date: |
| Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:55:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID: |
| <7A93237F-CC6D-4536-81CD-3580718D5C1D@suse.de> |
| Cc: |
| Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka-AT-web.de>,
torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org, avi-AT-redhat.com,
akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org,
kvm-AT-vger.kernel.org, gorcunov-AT-gmail.com, levinsasha928-AT-gmail.com,
asias.hejun-AT-gmail.com, prasadjoshi124-AT-gmail.com |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
On 25.07.2011, at 10:51, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote:
>>> For the same reasons we want tools/perf to be there.
>>
>> Yeah, I want a pony too.
>
> I can contact the Linux Foundation to see if we can arrange that.
>
> Seriously, though, I don't understand your point. What is it? Do you
> not agree that perf benefited from being part of the Linux kernel
> tree? Or do you think it does not apply here?
I disagree with the assumption that putting something into the kernel tree
benefits the project (except for maybe bumping its visibility, so it
potentially kills competition again). If however it's true, then we should
analyze why exactly projects benefit from being in the kernel tree, so we can
maybe find a good solution to achieve the same differently.
The approach "let's move everyting into tools/" simply doesn't scale.
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
