From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:10:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 27/27] KVM: PPC: Add Documentation about PV interface Message-Id: <4C305001.7060301@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <1277980982-12433-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1277980982-12433-28-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1278196909.4200.389.camel@pasglop> <79514591-DCC1-4D9E-AFB7-AA985ADF3C0F@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <79514591-DCC1-4D9E-AFB7-AA985ADF3C0F@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alexander Graf Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Segher Boessenkool , linuxppc-dev , KVM list , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org On 07/04/2010 12:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > My biggest concern about putting things in the device-tree is that I was trying to keep things as separate as possible. Why does the firmware have to know that it's running in KVM? It doesn't need to know about kvm, it needs to know that a particular hypercall protocol is available. > Why do I have to patch 3 projects (Linux, OpenBIOS, Qemu) when I could go with patching a single one (Linux)? > That's not a valid argument. You patch as many projects as it takes to get it right (not that I have an opinion in this particular discussion). At the very least you have to patch qemu for reasons described before (backwards compatible live migration). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2850AB6F17 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 19:10:32 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4C305001.7060301@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:10:25 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH 27/27] KVM: PPC: Add Documentation about PV interface References: <1277980982-12433-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1277980982-12433-28-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1278196909.4200.389.camel@pasglop> <79514591-DCC1-4D9E-AFB7-AA985ADF3C0F@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <79514591-DCC1-4D9E-AFB7-AA985ADF3C0F@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev , KVM list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/04/2010 12:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > My biggest concern about putting things in the device-tree is that I was trying to keep things as separate as possible. Why does the firmware have to know that it's running in KVM? It doesn't need to know about kvm, it needs to know that a particular hypercall protocol is available. > Why do I have to patch 3 projects (Linux, OpenBIOS, Qemu) when I could go with patching a single one (Linux)? > That's not a valid argument. You patch as many projects as it takes to get it right (not that I have an opinion in this particular discussion). At the very least you have to patch qemu for reasons described before (backwards compatible live migration). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 27/27] KVM: PPC: Add Documentation about PV interface Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:10:25 +0300 Message-ID: <4C305001.7060301@redhat.com> References: <1277980982-12433-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1277980982-12433-28-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1278196909.4200.389.camel@pasglop> <79514591-DCC1-4D9E-AFB7-AA985ADF3C0F@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Segher Boessenkool , linuxppc-dev , KVM list , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39666 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756915Ab0GDJKf (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jul 2010 05:10:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <79514591-DCC1-4D9E-AFB7-AA985ADF3C0F@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/04/2010 12:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > My biggest concern about putting things in the device-tree is that I was trying to keep things as separate as possible. Why does the firmware have to know that it's running in KVM? It doesn't need to know about kvm, it needs to know that a particular hypercall protocol is available. > Why do I have to patch 3 projects (Linux, OpenBIOS, Qemu) when I could go with patching a single one (Linux)? > That's not a valid argument. You patch as many projects as it takes to get it right (not that I have an opinion in this particular discussion). At the very least you have to patch qemu for reasons described before (backwards compatible live migration). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function