From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] provide in-kernel ioapic Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:18:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20091012141825.GC13560@shareable.org> References: <1254953315-5761-4-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4ACDEDEC.60706@us.ibm.com> <4ACDEF03.6010406@redhat.com> <20091008160726.GD29691@shareable.org> <4ACE10B5.3080509@redhat.com> <20091008162248.GK16702@redhat.com> <20091009143225.GV8092@mothafucka.localdomain> <20091009164955.GC7393@shareable.org> <4AD32D22.5090001@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Juan Quintela , Glauber Costa , kvm-devel , Avi Kivity , Gleb Natapov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:45183 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756809AbZJLOTH (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:19:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AD32D22.5090001@us.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anthony Liguori wrote: > We already have the single device model implementation and the > limitations are well known. The best way to move forward is for someone > to send out patches implementing separate device models. > > At that point, it becomes a discussion of two concrete pieces of code > verses hand waving. Out of curiosity now, what _are_ the behavioural differences between the in-kernel irqchip and the qemu one? Are the differences significant to guests, such that it might be necessary to disable the in-kernel irqchip for some guests, or conversely, necessary to use KVM for some guests? Thanks, -- Jamie