For the full-screen case (which is a very common mode of using a guest OS onThere are all kernel space projects, going through Xorg would be a
horrible waste of performance for full-screen virtualization. It's fine
for the windowed or networked case (and good as a compatibility fallback),
but very much not fine for local desktop use.
the desktop) there's not much of window management needed. You need to
save/restore as you switch in/out.
3D graphics virtualization is extremely difficult in the non-passthroughGranted it's difficult in the general case.
case. It really requires hardware support that isn't widely available today
(outside a few NVIDIA chipsets).
With KSM the display resize is in the kernel.It doesn't provide the things we need to a good user experience. You needXorg framebuffer driver doesn't implement any of the optimizations that theFYI, this part of X has already been pulled into the kernel, it's called
Linux framebuffer supports and the Xorg driver does not provide use the
kernel's interfaces for providing update regions.
Of course, we need to pull in X into the kernel to fix this, right?
DRM. If then it's being expanded.
things like an absolute input device, host driven display resize, RGBA
hardware cursors. None of these go through DRI and it's those things that
really provide the graphics user experience.
Cursor management is not. Yet: i
think it would be a nice feature as the cursor could move even if Xorg is
blocked or busy with other things.
If you are not two separate communities but one community, then why do you goI don't know why you keep saying this. The people who are in theseAny sufficiently complicated piece of software is going to interact withThat's my whole point with this thread: the kernel side of KVM and qemu,
a lot of other projects. The solution is not to pull it all into one
massive repository. It's to build relationships and to find ways to
efficiently work with the various communities.
but all practical purposes should not be two 'separate communities'. They
should be one and the same thing.
"separate communities" keep claiming that they don't feel this way.
through the (somewhat masochistic) self-punishing excercise of keeping the
project in two different pieces?
In a distant past Qemu was a separate project and KVM was just a newcomer who
used it for fancy stuff. Today as you say(?) the two communities are one and
the same. Why not bring it to its logical conclusion?
I'm not just saying this to be argumentative. Many of the people in theI'm not aware of anyone in the past having attempted to move qemu to
community have thought this same thing, and tried it themselves, and we've
all come to the same conclusion.
It's certainly possible that we just missed the obvious thing to do but
we'll never know that unless someone shows us.
tools/kvm/ in the uptream kernel repo, and having reported on the experiences
with such a contribution setup. (obviously it's not possible at all without
heavy cooperation and acceptance from you and Avi, so this will probably
remain a thought experiment forever)
If then you must refer to previous attempts to 'strip down' Qemu, right? Those
attempts didnt really solve the fundamental problem of project code base
separation.
Ingo