[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-users] Re: Xen is a feature
- To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
- From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:55:28 -0600
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx>, Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kurt.hackel@xxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, stephen.spector@xxxxxxxxxx, avi@xxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxx, dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx, wimcoekaerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, EAnderson@xxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:13:50 -0700
- List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Where it comes from is his very recent statement, which contains those
> very words. You may interpret what he said in any way you choose, but
> denying that he said it shows that you didn't follow the link back. I
> never denied the ugliness of the code, nor does the author, but it adds
> a great deal of value for many people, and that's the point I was making.
Lots of code could be said to add a great deal of value for many people
(semi-closed video card drivers, ndiswrapper, etc.), but it's never
going to be accepted into the kernel.
The maintainers get to decide whether the perceived benefit outweighs
the perceived cost. So far, they've decided that Xen isn't worth it.
The most likely way to get Xen merged is to lower the cost (reduce the
churn and ugliness), increase the benefit (improve the virtualization
layer, thus cleaning up other code as well), or both.
Xen-users mailing list