From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we want -kvm-shadow-memory semantics?
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:28:02 -0200
Message-ID: <20120119172802.GD11381@amt.cnet>
References: <4F1810AF.8010002@siemens.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42446 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932485Ab2ASRc4 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:32:56 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F1810AF.8010002@siemens.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:46:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> do we need some KVM knob comparable to qemu-kvm's -kvm-shadow-memory in
> upstream?
> 
> If yes: The underlying IOCTL is x86-only. Are other archs interested in
> this long-term as well, ie. should the control become arch-independent?
> 
> Jan

Last time i asked about removal, Avi wished for it to remain.