From: Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
To: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [BUGFIX][PATCH for 2.2 1/1] hw/i386/pc_piix.c: Also pass vmport=off for xenfv machine
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:24:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <546E079F.8030802@terremark.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141120151346.GJ3243@thinpad.lan.raisama.net>
On 11/20/14 10:13, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:08:08PM -0500, Don Slutz wrote:
>> On 11/19/14 13:08, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 19/11/2014 19:07, Don Slutz wrote:
>>>>> "-M pc -machine accel=xen" should work and, if that's what you want,
>>>>> disable the vmport device. I think this patch is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paolo
>>>> Well, I also want "-M pc -machine accel=xen,vmport=on" to work.
>>> Right. So let's start by deciding what the desired semantics are for
>>> all six cases: -M pc/xenfv, -machine vmport=on/off/absent.
>>>
>>> Paolo
>> I get 12 cases (PCMachineState *pcms = PC_MACHINE(obj)):
> We have more cases, if we consider "-M pc-2.1" too.
>
> With this first patch (the one changing default_machine_opts), I expect
> to get the following results:
>
> -M pc
> pcms->vmport is true
> -M pc -machine vmport=on
> pcms->vmport is true
> -M pc -machine vmport=off
> pcms->vmport is false
> -M pc-2.1
> pcms->vmport is true
> -M pc-2.1 -machine vmport=on
> pcms->vmport is true
> (but it doesn't matter, QEMU 2.1 didn't have the vmport option)
> -M pc-2.1 -machine vmport=off
> pcms->vmport is false
> (but it doesn't matter, QEMU 2.1 didn't have the vmport option)
> -M xenfv
> pcms->vmport is false
> -M xenfv -machine vmport=on
> pcms->vmport is true
> -M xenfv -machine vmport=off
> pcms->vmport is false
>
> -M pc -machine accel=xen
> pcms->vmport is true
> -M pc -machine vmport=on,accel=xen
> pcms->vmport is true
> -M pc -machine vmport=off,accel=xen
> pcms->vmport is false
> -M pc-2.1 -machine accel=xen
> pcms->vmport is true **
> -M pc-2.1 -machine vmport=on,accel=xen
> pcms->vmport is true
> (but it doesn't matter, QEMU 2.1 didn't have the vmport option)
> -M pc-2.1 -machine vmport=off,accel=xen
> pcms->vmport is false
> (but it doesn't matter, QEMU 2.1 didn't have the vmport option)
> -M xenfv -machine accel=xen
> pcms->vmport is false
> -M xenfv -machine vmport=on,accel=xen
> pcms->vmport is true
> -M xenfv -machine vmport=off,accel=xen
> pcms->vmport is false
>
> I believe there's no consensus yet about the one marked with "**" above. It
> boils to the question: do we need to keep guest ABI stability when using
> "-M pc-2.1 -machine accel=xen"?
>
My answer is that for "**" vmport needs to be off. It looks like my
response:
> Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH for 2.2 1/1] hw/i386/pc_piix.c: Also pass
vmport=off for xenfv machine
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:09:31 -0500
> From: Don Slutz <dslutz@terremark.com>
> To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Don Slutz
<dslutz@verizon.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Eduardo
Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>
> On 11/20/14 01:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > On 19/11/2014 20:08, Don Slutz wrote:
> >> -M pc -machine accel=xen
> >> pcms->vmport is false
> > I think this should be true. Any reason why not?
> >
> > Paolo
>
> Yes, QEMU will crash if xen is enabled and the guest tries to access the
> VMware port.
>
> (more on different thread).
>
> -Don Slutz
Was not seen before this.
-Don Slutz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-20 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-19 17:30 [Qemu-devel] [BUGFIX][PATCH for 2.2 1/1] hw/i386/pc_piix.c: Also pass vmport=off for xenfv machine Don Slutz
2014-11-19 17:35 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-11-19 18:07 ` Don Slutz
2014-11-19 18:08 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-11-19 19:08 ` Don Slutz
2014-11-19 19:15 ` Don Slutz
2014-11-19 19:30 ` Eduardo Habkost
2014-11-19 20:01 ` Don Slutz
2014-11-20 0:24 ` Eduardo Habkost
2014-11-20 0:49 ` Don Slutz
2014-11-20 6:02 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-11-20 15:09 ` Don Slutz
2014-11-20 15:13 ` Eduardo Habkost
2014-11-20 15:24 ` Don Slutz [this message]
2014-11-20 15:27 ` Eduardo Habkost
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=546E079F.8030802@terremark.com \
--to=dslutz@verizon.com \
--cc=aliguori@amazon.com \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=mjt@tls.msk.ru \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.