From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49772) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZAFEQ-0004bk-6U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 06:27:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZAFEM-0002K7-6M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 06:27:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54497) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZAFEM-0002K1-1S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 06:27:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:26:56 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20150701102656.GE16822@redhat.com> References: <20150701102112.GE16763@cbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150701102112.GE16763@cbox> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] vGICv3 support Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Christoffer Dall Cc: Shlomo Pongratz , Pavel Fedin , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Ashok Kumar , Eric Auger On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 01:58:40PM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote: > > This is my alternative to Ashok's vGICv3 patch > > (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg03021.html), which > > i am currently working on. It addresses vGIC capability verification issue > > (kvm_irqchip_create() / kvm_arch_irqchip_create()), as well as offers better > > code structure (v3 code separated from v2). > > This patchset applies on top of this: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg00943.html. Note that > > GIC type selection still relies on machine name (virt-v3 vs virt), and not on > > machine option. Since libvirt has recently introduced support for extra options, > > i have absolutely nothing against Ashok's approach. I just did not change this > > yet because it would affect my testing environment. The aim of this RFC is to > > focus on vGICv3 implementation and related changes. And yes, i agree that v2 and > > v3 now have some copypasted code, and this is TBD. > > This cover letter is not really helpful as it only describes the history > and circumstances of how this patch came to be. > > It would be helpful if the beginning of this cover letter focuses on > what the patch series does and which design decisions have been taken to > shape the patches the way they are. > > I don't understand the whole background thing about libvirt and I don't I replied to the earlier posting of the patch series that the quoted libvirt limitation does not exist any longer, so that really should not be mentioned as a problem/rationale for the machine type approach anymore. I agree with Peter GICv3 should be selected based on properties not new machine types. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|