From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Subject: qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we want -kvm-shadow-memory semantics?
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:46:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4F1810AF.8010002@siemens.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
To: kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from david.siemens.de ([192.35.17.14]:31220 "EHLO david.siemens.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752112Ab2ASMqp (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:46:45 -0500
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

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

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux