From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MTgYt-0002in-G1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:29:07 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MTgYo-0002gg-OU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:29:06 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48811 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MTgYo-0002gc-Gg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:29:02 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:39877)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <glommer@redhat.com>) id 1MTgYo-0007Me-1u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:29:02 -0400
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:35:54 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20090722183554.GT4019@poweredge.glommer>
References: <20090722141519.2c142274@doriath> <4A675360.9030808@us.ibm.com>
	<20090722151018.71dc04ec@doriath> <4A6757F5.5060909@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A6757F5.5060909@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Build currently broken
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:18:29PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>  In QEMU you mean?
>>
>>  The first commit introducing it seems to be
>> e22a25c9361c44995c9241c24df0e1e2c47a56c8 , but I have no idea
>> on how this macro and its code are being used.
>>   
> No, I was asking when it was introduced in KVM.  We have a minimal set  
> of capabilities that we require.  It looks like KVM_CAP_SET_GUEST_DEBUG  
> arrived shortly after KVM_CAP_DESTROY_MEMORY_REGION which is our current  
> minimum.
How will this minimum change if we start backporting things like memory aliasing
broken for qemu?