lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Native Linux KVM tool
On 04/06/2011 04:33 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Sure, any succcesful project becomes an ugly gooball. It's almost a
>> compliment.
> I disagree strongly with that sentiment and there's several good counter
> examples:
>
> - the Git project is also highly successful and is kept very clean (and has a
> project size comparable to Qemu)
>
> - the Linux kernel is also very clean in all areas i care about and has most
> of its ugliness stuffed into drivers/staging/ (and has a project size more
> than an order of magnitude larger than Qemu).
>
> In fact i claim the exact opposite: certain types of projects can only grow
> beyond a certain size and stay healthy if they are *not* ugly gooballs.
>
> Examples: X11 and GCC - both were struggling for years to break through magic
> invisible barriers of growth and IMHO a lot of it had to do with the lack of
> code (and development model) cleanliness.

So what makes Native Linux KVM tool so much cleaner?

As far as I can tell, it's architecturally identical to QEMU. In fact,
it's reminiscent of QEMU from about 5 years ago. It makes the same
mistakes of having a linear I/O dispatch model, makes no attempt to
enable a threaded execution model, ignores thing like migration and
manageability.

> So no, your kind of cynical, defeatist sentiment about code quality is by no
> means true in my experience. Projects become ugly gooballs once maintainers
> stop caring enough.

It think sweeping generalizations are always wrong :-)

I struggle with a lot of things in QEMU. Compatibility is just a
nightmare to maintain because so many of the previous interfaces and
functionality were so poorly thought through.

If someone was going to seriously go about doing something like this, a
better approach would be to start with QEMU and remove anything non-x86
and all of the UI/command line/management bits and start there.

There's nothing more I'd like to see than a viable alternative to QEMU
but ignoring any of the architectural mistakes in QEMU and repeating
them in a new project isn't going to get there.

Too much effort in QEMU goes into working around previous mistakes.
That doesn't mean that QEMU doesn't have a lot of useful bits in it and
hasn't figured out a lot of good ways to do things.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Thanks,
>
> Ingo



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-08 04:17    [W:0.251 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site