From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1K1mDm-0000w8-L8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:47:26 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1K1mDk-0000uM-Ol
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:47:26 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48796 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K1mDk-0000u5-JA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:47:24 -0400
Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.44.157]:56378)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1K1mDk-0007hQ-6P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:47:24 -0400
Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 3so363908yxi.82
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 10:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <483EEC20.5030606@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:47:12 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KQEMU code organization
References: <483C3D55.2000508@siemens.com>	<483C8705.307@bellard.org>	<483D81FA.5070202@siemens.com>	<483D8A2E.5070907@bellard.org>	<483D8E9A.40509@siemens.com>	<483EA1AD.1010901@bellard.org>	<20080529161322.GB21610@shareable.org>
	<483EDE5E.2000807@siemens.com>
In-Reply-To: <483EDE5E.2000807@siemens.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Jamie Lokier wrote:
>   
> Virtio on x86 requires no special host-kernel support, IIRC. But, yeah,
> in-kernel irqchip (including APIC) is a further incentive to motivate
> such step.
>
> But - this is all nice on the drawing board. It just requires a
> reasonable balance between required effort (wouldn't be small, I guess)
> and future relevance. For x86, by AMD and Intel at least (not sure about
> VIA right now),

As of the recently announced Isaiah microarchitecture, VIA includes 
support for VT.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>  you see hardware virtualization in every new processor.
> So kqemu becomes less and less relevant over the time. The thrilling
> question is: Is that period long enough to justify a kqemu / soft-kvm,
> and to push the result mainline?
>
> Jan
>
>