Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:06:56AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > That was opposed quite strongly by the kernel folks last time it was
> > > attempted. Were there any fundamental changes in the Xen dom0 patches
> > > since then?
> > Only by the kernel folks which believe all of the crap that the KVM
> > guys say about Xen. There are plenty of kernel developers willing
> > to see the patches merged.
> Hmm, you have a problem there.
> Linus is very likely going to cheerfully tell the Xen and KVM developers to
> duke it out in a bloodbath, and to not forget to bring AlacrityVM into the
> fray either. He could care less for virtualization, and he is likely to
> refuse to merge anything non-trivial until the "virtualization crazy people"
> manage to reach a consensus on a sane API. Look for the AlacrityVM threads
> in LKML if you doubt me.
Then again the KVM vs. AlacrityVM discussion is a bit different.
AlacrityVM is a fork of KVM..
> Note: I am not defending KVM. I don't agree with their main ideology (that
> their hardware-emulating approach is the One True Way). But I can well see
> why Linus decided to take that instance.
> Xen's track record from hell on getting their act cleaned up for upstream
> merging is also going to get in the way. Some people have long memories.
Linus has been happily accepting a lot of Xen pv_ops (domU) patches from Jeremy
So it seems to be mostly about the 'quality' of the code.