From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37684 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJ7SW-0002a6-UF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:35:41 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1PJ7SV-0007v0-Vh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:35:40 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1030)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1PJ7SV-0007up-Op
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:35:39 -0500
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:35:21 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] RAM API: Make use of it for x86 PC
Message-ID: <20101118163521.GA11896@redhat.com>
References: <20101101150701.3927.88854.stgit@s20.home>
	<20101101151415.3927.87944.stgit@s20.home>
	<4CE29C15.7040704@codemonkey.ws> <1289942646.3069.38.camel@x201>
	<4CE46864.1000704@codemonkey.ws> <4CE544BE.3010806@redhat.com>
	<4CE54A5D.1020405@codemonkey.ws> <4CE54CD4.3020103@redhat.com>
	<4CE54FB4.2010706@codemonkey.ws> <4CE551BE.9020306@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CE551BE.9020306@redhat.com>
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: chrisw@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, blauwirbel@gmail.com, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, ddutile@redhat.com

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:18:06PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >But for PV devices, we can be loose in how we define the way the
> >devices interact with the rest of the system.  For instance, we
> >can say that virtio-pci devices are directly connected to RAM and
> >do not go through the memory controllers.  That means we could get
> >stable mappings of the virtio ring.
> 
> That wouldn't work once we have an iommu and start to assign them to
> nested guests.

Yea. Not sure whether I'm worried about that though.
Mixing in all the problems inherent in nested virt, PV and assigned
devices seems especially masochistic.

> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function