From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58292) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr69H-0003wb-Oj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:22:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr69B-0005K0-LT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:22:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38356) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr69B-0005Jj-Ey for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:22:17 -0500 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAJEMGJh022049 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:22:16 -0500 From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: <20141119141301.GC2355@work-vm> (David Alan Gilbert's message of "Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:13:01 +0000") References: <546AE14E.7060606@redhat.com> <20141118074904.GA19745@redhat.com> <87y4r7o8dh.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119093320.GA26119@redhat.com> <87d28jo5yp.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119102136.GC26395@redhat.com> <878uj7o4ec.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119132851.GA27435@redhat.com> <546C9EC0.5000105@redhat.com> <87ioibmgx6.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119141301.GC2355@work-vm> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:22:14 +0100 Message-ID: <87wq6rl17t.fsf@elfo.elfo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] exec: qemu_ram_alloc_device, qemu_ram_resize Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote: > Since we've wondered off the actual ACPI table stuff into general > ROM sizing, I'd like to propose some concrete fixes: > > 1) We explicitly name the bios file in a .romfile attribute for > all ROMs. > 2) The code that uses .romfile has an expansion for $MACHINETYPE > 3) We actually symlink all of those together, anyone who wants/has > to deal with different versions can downstream. > 4) The machine types contain size attributes for the ROMs that > are generoously larger than the ROMs anyone currently uses. > > I think 1..3 should deal with those of us who have to deal with different > ROM versions on different machine types. > 4 might be good enough for the ACPI tables if you can bound it. > > Dave I would agree with something like that. Thanks, Juan.