From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 26/35] kvm: Eliminate KVMState arguments Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:26:30 -0600 Message-ID: <4D2C84B6.3090104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <4D2616D6.4080309@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D26D6CF.5070405@web.de> <4D27A16F.9030809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D282489.90506@web.de> <4D2B6506.6070907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D2B6845.7050809@web.de> <4D2B6ADD.4090505@codemonkey.ws> <4D2C1C5D.2050504@redhat.com> <4D2C6290.1060607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1EA102F5-B6C2-43BC-9493-0271B287FC18@suse.de> <4D2C649F.6080508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D2C67C2.5080000@redhat.com> <4D2C6AFA.4040104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D2C6FAB.3050209@redhat.com> <4D2C7353.2000008@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D2C793C.2070003@redhat.com> <4D2C7D8C.8070503@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D2C7F45.9060005@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Graf , Jan Kiszka , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:43899 "EHLO e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932267Ab1AKQ1a (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:27:30 -0500 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p0BGFKLJ011034 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:15:20 -0700 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id p0BGRNb1251562 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:27:23 -0700 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p0BGRMv4020047 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:27:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4D2C7F45.9060005@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Visible, yes, but not in live migration, or in 'info i8254', or > similar. We can live migrate between qcow2 and qed (using block > migration), we should be able to do the same for the two i8254 > implementations. > > I'm not happy about separate implementations, but that's a minor > details. We can change it 2n+1 times without anybody noticing. Not > so about ABI stuff. > >> Imagine getting a sosreport that includes a dump of the device tree. >> You really want to see something in there that tells you it's an >> in-kernel PIT and not the userspace one. > > Sure. Not the device tree though. The command line would give all > the information? Then it's a one off option. We really want as much info as possible stored in the device tree. > > Or 'info i8254' can say something about the implementation. I don't > want to have the user say 'info i8254-kvm'. info doesn't take a qdev device so yes, it can show whatever we want it to show. Regards, Anthony Liguori