From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: Move kvm_allows_irq0_override() to target-i386 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:50:21 +0300 Message-ID: <500E61CD.9080200@redhat.com> References: <1342811652-16931-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <500A52BF.9080207@web.de> <500D42E2.4000009@redhat.com> <500D4D12.1060603@redhat.com> <500D53DB.5080005@redhat.com> <500D5FEE.1010006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Marcelo Tosatti , patches@linaro.org, kvm , Alexander Graf To: Peter Maydell Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33558 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751456Ab2GXIuf (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2012 04:50:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/23/2012 08:58 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 23 July 2012 15:30, Avi Kivity wrote: >> But I was only joking. Nested virtualization is interesting technically >> but so far I haven't seen any huge or even small uptake. > > Yes; that (as I understand it) is why it wasn't an expected use > case for the architecture extensions. The other related thing that > might be surprising for x86-background people is that being > able to present the guest with a virtual CPU that looks like > a pre-virtualization CPU (eg the A9) isn't really an intended > use case either. (The ARM world has much less of the 'everything > must be fully backwards compatible for existing OSes' than x86...) I expect this to change once ARM servers become a reality. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function