From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 14/16] kvm: x86: Add user space part
 for in-kernel i8259
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:35:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4EDBA15E.3060309@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1322910904.git.jan.kiszka@web.de>
	<dabf933896380a5100335a0d1b5e3351000e6f4b.1322910904.git.jan.kiszka@web.de>
	<4EDB762C.7090909@redhat.com> <4EDB78DE.6000109@web.de>
	<4EDB7A74.4060804@redhat.com> <4EDB7ADC.50906@web.de>
	<4EDB7DE2.2050301@redhat.com> <4EDB7E62.7090909@web.de>
	<4EDB8DDE.5040402@redhat.com> <4EDB8F7C.1070602@web.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Return-path: <qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <4EDB8F7C.1070602@web.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 12/04/2011 05:19 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > 
> > In the sense that kernel-apic is just an accelerated apic.  From the
> > guest point of view, there's no difference, and that should be reflected
> > in the device model.
>
> That was my goal as well: The guest should not notice the difference,
> but the admin on the host side should still be able to tell both
> internally fairly different models apart. 

This should be some attribute, not the name.

> Plus the code should be
> clearly split where there are differences and explicitly shared where
> there aren't.

That's a good goal, yes.

>
> > 
> > If I'm reading an apic register, either from the guest or via a monitor
> > debug interface, I shouldn't care whether it's accelerated or not.  The
> > guest part already holds, of course.
>
> Specifically for the debug scenario, I'd prefer the clear
> differentiation by name as there can always remain subtle differences in
> the implementation of kernel vs. user space. Someone debugging the guest
> and/or qemu/kvm should remain aware of this.

Aware, yes, but the name change is too drastic.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function