From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add KVM support to QEMU Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:51:17 -0500 Message-ID: <49078955.2090109@codemonkey.ws> References: <1225224814-9875-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <1225224814-9875-2-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <1225224814-9875-3-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <49078707.5000109@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity , Glauber Costa , kvm-devel To: Gerd Hoffmann Return-path: Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.28]:60062 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752263AbYJ1VvW (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:51:22 -0400 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so704765ywe.1 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:51:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <49078707.5000109@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> This patch only implements the bare minimum support to get a guest booting. It >> has very little impact the rest of QEMU and attempts to integrate nicely with >> the rest of QEMU. >> > > Huh? That isn't based on the qemu-accel patches ... > This is part of the reason for this exercise. I'd rather introduce KVM support first and then look at abstracting things, than vice versa. A number of the hooks in the current QEMUAccel tree are there for the wrong reason (to support the out-of-tree IO thread, for instance). If you just introduce something with various hooks and say, these are hooks we'll need, it's not possible to really evaluate whether the hooks are needed because nothing in the tree makes use of them. Regards, Anthony Liguori > surprised, > Gerd > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >