Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:18:29PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>  
>>> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>    
>>>>  In QEMU you mean?
>>>>
>>>>  The first commit introducing it seems to be
>>>> e22a25c9361c44995c9241c24df0e1e2c47a56c8 , but I have no idea
>>>> on how this macro and its code are being used.
>>>>         
>>> No, I was asking when it was introduced in KVM.  We have a minimal
>>> set  of capabilities that we require.  It looks like
>>> KVM_CAP_SET_GUEST_DEBUG  arrived shortly after
>>> KVM_CAP_DESTROY_MEMORY_REGION which is our current  minimum.
>>>     

That's true, and that's why we have to test for it.

>> How will this minimum change if we start backporting things like
>> memory aliasing
>> broken for qemu?
>>   
> 
> Good question.  I don't know.  I really hate to have all of these #ifdef
> KVM_CAPs all over the place though.
> 
> Maybe we should re-examine pulling in kvm header files.
> 

Yes, I also once discussed this with Avi: We could drop all that
build-time checks if we always carry sufficiently recent headers. Same
is true for qemu-kvm, where the clutter is even worse (as it has much
more features).

Jan

PS: Ceterum censeo we don't need legacy support beyond our current level.