From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTh8R-0005Tb-MN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:05:51 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTh8M-0005Fo-DL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:05:50 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37411 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MTh8M-0005FV-2q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:05:46 -0400 Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227]:34911) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MTh8L-0006sr-7T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:05:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4A676304.2060703@web.de> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:05:40 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20090722141519.2c142274@doriath> <4A675360.9030808@us.ibm.com> <20090722151018.71dc04ec@doriath> <4A6757F5.5060909@us.ibm.com> <20090722183554.GT4019@poweredge.glommer> <4A675AC4.1000701@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4A675AC4.1000701@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig1D8A58BE640044C04C54D856" Sender: jan.kiszka@web.de Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Build currently broken List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Glauber Costa , Avi Kivity , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig1D8A58BE640044C04C54D856 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anthony Liguori wrote: > Glauber Costa wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:18:29PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> =20 >>> Luiz Capitulino wrote: >>> =20 >>>> In QEMU you mean? >>>> >>>> The first commit introducing it seems to be >>>> e22a25c9361c44995c9241c24df0e1e2c47a56c8 , but I have no idea >>>> on how this macro and its code are being used. >>>> =20 >>> No, I was asking when it was introduced in KVM. We have a minimal >>> set of capabilities that we require. It looks like >>> KVM_CAP_SET_GUEST_DEBUG arrived shortly after >>> KVM_CAP_DESTROY_MEMORY_REGION which is our current minimum. >>> =20 That's true, and that's why we have to test for it. >> How will this minimum change if we start backporting things like >> memory aliasing >> broken for qemu? >> =20 >=20 > Good question. I don't know. I really hate to have all of these #ifde= f > KVM_CAPs all over the place though. >=20 > Maybe we should re-examine pulling in kvm header files. >=20 Yes, I also once discussed this with Avi: We could drop all that build-time checks if we always carry sufficiently recent headers. Same is true for qemu-kvm, where the clutter is even worse (as it has much more features). Jan PS: Ceterum censeo we don't need legacy support beyond our current level.= --------------enig1D8A58BE640044C04C54D856 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpnYwQACgkQniDOoMHTA+nK5ACdFOiUhvz0axQrdAo0JfdXoqRw RH4AnjpViNyoeBBWYZ0vazahut9rVAn0 =QNOb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig1D8A58BE640044C04C54D856--