From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MxLjk-0005Ek-Ob
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:18:56 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MxLjf-00058c-KK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:18:56 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60742 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MxLjf-00058Q-G9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:18:51 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:37052)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1MxLjf-0005aW-2N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:18:51 -0400
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:18:25 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Message-ID: <20091012141825.GC13560@shareable.org>
References: <1254953315-5761-4-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>
	<4ACDEDEC.60706@us.ibm.com> <4ACDEF03.6010406@redhat.com>
	<20091008160726.GD29691@shareable.org>
	<4ACE10B5.3080509@redhat.com> <20091008162248.GK16702@redhat.com>
	<20091009143225.GV8092@mothafucka.localdomain>
	<20091009164955.GC7393@shareable.org>
	<m31vlctk9q.fsf@neno.mitica> <4AD32D22.5090001@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AD32D22.5090001@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] provide in-kernel ioapic
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: kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela <quintela@trasno.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> We already have the single device model implementation and the 
> limitations are well known.  The best way to move forward is for someone 
> to send out patches implementing separate device models.
> 
> At that point, it becomes a discussion of two concrete pieces of code 
> verses hand waving.

Out of curiosity now, what _are_ the behavioural differences between
the in-kernel irqchip and the qemu one?

Are the differences significant to guests, such that it might be
necessary to disable the in-kernel irqchip for some guests, or
conversely, necessary to use KVM for some guests?

Thanks,
-- Jamie