[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU
From: |
Stuart Brady |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:47:14 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 04:09:18PM -0400, Chris Frey wrote:
> > Or let me put it another way: At some point I'll get fed up of the
> > limitations that kqemu currently imposes, and deliberately break it.
>
> I would hope that anyone who deliberately breaks kqemu support would be
> kind enough to post that fact to the mailing list, with a description of
> what's broken and why, so that others may step up to the plate and fix it.
Perhaps so, but unless someone is actually going to fix kqemu or write a
replacement, I don't see what difference this really makes.
> According to other threads on this list, it would appear that getting
> KQEMU into the kernel is often thought of as impossible, or "would never
> happen." So this isn't really a solution either.
More like "impossible because it *should* never happen". kqemu is not
known to be secure. I don't know what the position of developers for
kernels besides Linux is on this, but it's hardly the point, tbh...
--
Stuart Brady
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU, Andreas Färber, 2009/06/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU, Paul Brook, 2009/06/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU, Andreas Färber, 2009/06/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU, Gleb Natapov, 2009/06/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU, Avi Kivity, 2009/06/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU, Gerd Hoffmann, 2009/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU,
Stuart Brady <=
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Re: Killing KQEMU, Chris Frey, 2009/06/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Re: Killing KQEMU, Paul Brook, 2009/06/03
Re: [Qemu-devel] Killing KQEMU, Gleb Natapov, 2009/06/02
Re: [Qemu-devel] Killing KQEMU, Anton D Kachalov, 2009/06/02