From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KcA16-0001XD-Ri for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:28:44 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KcA14-0001Ws-Ko for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:28:43 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53070 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KcA14-0001Wp-FH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:28:42 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.250]:54439) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KcA14-0000y0-74 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:28:42 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so162910and.130 for ; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48C33C29.5080803@codemonkey.ws> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:27:53 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Make vmport an optional feature at run time. References: <1219578445-25610-1-git-send-email-blob@blob.co.uk> <48B1B8C5.4040902@codemonkey.ws> <48B1FB9F.3090405@codemonkey.ws> <20080825083400.GA994@networkno.de> In-Reply-To: <20080825083400.GA994@networkno.de> 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: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thiemo Seufer Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Ian Kirk Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> >> I don't think that's very valuable in and of itself. Moreover, there >> are probably a lot more issues with respect to getting ESXi to run under >> QEMU. Adding another command line option to support something that we >> don't know will ever work worries me. It's just another knob for >> someone to accidentally tweak. >> > > At this point I wonder if we should have both a "real PC" machine and > a "virtual x86" machine. We have already seen patches for a xen-specific > variant of the latter. > There's no such thing as a standard PC. There of unique hardware out there and it's even worse because a lot of hardware is only meant to be accessed by the BIOS. So I don't think any OS should have a problem with vmport other than knowing what it is, and expecting certain things from it that we may not be providing. I don't see this as being any different than any other device emulation. When we find this, we should extend vmport to include these features. However, I don't think we should write new guest code that uses the vmport interface, because it's not an interface we have any control over. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Thiemo >