From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/16] uq/master: Introduce basic irqchip support Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:03:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4EF05D76.5070704@redhat.com> References: <20111219211737.GA17469@amt.cnet> <4EEFB9AE.7050309@codemonkey.ws> <4EEFCD71.5040603@web.de> <4EEFD7A9.3050007@codemonkey.ws> <4EEFD8D1.3060707@web.de> <4EEFDFFE.6000402@codemonkey.ws> <4EEFE2BD.2090201@web.de> <4EEFF708.3010104@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Lai Jiangshan , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel , Blue Swirl , Jan Kiszka To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4EEFF708.3010104@codemonkey.ws> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 12/20/2011 04:46 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > I would hope that you would agree that when designing the device > model, we should aim to do what makes sense independent of migration. > If we cannot achieve a certain feature with migration given the > logical modeling of devices, it probably suggests that we need to > improve our migration infrastructure. > > I assume that given the above, we all agree that separate devices is > what makes the most sense ignoring migration. I don't agree with this. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function