From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NMNaT-0007Tv-3R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:20:49 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NMNaO-0007O2-5S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:20:48 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60668 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NMNaO-0007Nq-1o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:20:44 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6310) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NMNaN-0004dM-Lm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:20:43 -0500 Message-ID: <4B2E40C7.2080908@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:20:39 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [SeaBIOS] [PATCH 0/8] option rom loading overhaul. References: <1261134074-11795-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <20091220083857.GE4490@redhat.com> <4B2E381A.4080804@codemonkey.ws> <20091220145200.GA6706@redhat.com> <4B2E3BA0.7080004@codemonkey.ws> <20091220150751.GL4490@redhat.com> <4B2E3E96.7090708@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4B2E3E96.7090708@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , Gleb Natapov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 12/20/2009 05:11 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > Not at all. Reset can happen in a lot of different ways, some that > there is really no way to detect (jumping right to BIOS vector). From > a hardware perspective, powering down a CPU and powering it on again > behaves very differently than reset (consider the VT enablement MSRs). Power down and reset are equivalent, you're thinking of INIT (though some boards wire reset to INIT). > We should just qemu_ram_alloc() that memory regardless of whether we > every map it into the guest. Since roms can be large, we want to send > their contents over during the live part of migration. If we use > qemu_ram_alloc(), we get that for free. Currently live migration uses ram_addrs, so this would work. But ram_addrs have no meaning in the guest and thus depend on qemu implementation details. IMO we should switch live migration to use guest physical addresses, which would require a different migration implementation for roms. Most of it can be shared with ram, though. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function