On 03/21/2010 10:08 PM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:01:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
>> On 03/21/2010 09:17 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>      
>>> Adding any new daemon to an existing guest is a deployment and usability
>>> nightmare.
>>>
>>>        
>> The logical conclusion of that is that everything should be built into
>> the kernel.  Where a failure brings the system down or worse.  Where you
>> have to bear the memory footprint whether you ever use the functionality
>> or not.  Where to update the functionality you need to deploy a new
>> kernel (possibly introducing unrelated bugs) and reboot.
>>
>> If userspace daemons are such a deployment and usability nightmare,
>> maybe we should fix that instead.
>>      
> Which userspace?  Deploying *anything* in the guest can be a
> nightmare, including paravirt drivers if you don't have a natively
> supported in the OS virtual hardware backoff.

That includes the guest kernel.  If you can deploy a new kernel in the 
guest, presumably you can deploy a userspace package.

quoted text
> Deploying things in the
> host OTOH is business as usual.
>    

True.

quoted text
> And you're smart enough to know that.
>    

Thanks.

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/