WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

[Xen-users] Re: Xen is a feature

To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-users] Re: Xen is a feature
From: Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:29:01 +0200
Cc: jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx, ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx, dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wimcoekaerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxx, george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, jeremy@xxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, stephen.spector@xxxxxxxxxx, avi@xxxxxxxxxx, EAnderson@xxxxxxxxxx, kurt.hackel@xxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxx, Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:23:15 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4A26FB3B.6010205@xxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <162f4c90-6431-4a2a-b337-6d7451d7b11e@default> <20090528001350.GD26820@xxxxxxx> <4A1F302E.8030501@xxxxxxxx> <20090528.210559.137121893.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A1FCE8E.2060604@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0905311607560.3379@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A26D3D8.6080002@xxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0906032204220.3419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0906032204220.3419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A26FB3B.6010205@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I was referring to your "no benefit" comment, I don't dispute the
> technical issues. I think the idea of moving the hypervisor into the
> kernel and letting xen folks do the external parts as they please.

Where does that come from? AFAICT Thomas never made a "no benefit" comment 
other than limited to the context of the technical implementation.
I've always understood his meaning in this thread to be: "the proposed 
patch set does not improve the technical standard of the linux kernel, 
but would instead lower it considerably".
Thomas has been extremely correct in this thread and IMO does not deserve 
this attack.

Let's look at his exact comments (emphasis mine).

! The kernel policy always was and still is to accept only those
! features which have a technical benefit **to the code base**.

and

! Aside of the paravirt, which seems to expand through arch/x86 like a
! hydra, the new patches sprinkle "if (xen_...)" all over the
! place. These extra xen dependencies are no improvement, they are a
! royal pain in the ...

Also clearly limited to technical implementation.

! I really have a hard time to see why dom0 support makes Linux more
! useful **to people who do not use it**. It does not improve the Linux
! experience **of Joe User** at all.

Or has Thomas made some "no benefit" comment I've missed?

Cheers,
FJP

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users