From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NN4Uc-0004WD-AU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:09:38 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NN4UX-0004TA-SA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:09:38 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60900 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NN4UX-0004T5-K8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:09:33 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23094) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NN4UX-0005Ge-F8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:09:33 -0500 Message-ID: <4B30C501.6070100@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:09:21 +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> <4B2E3E96.7090708@codemonkey.ws> <4B2E40C7.2080908@redhat.com> <200912221304.42114.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200912221304.42114.paul@codesourcery.com> 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: Paul Brook Cc: Gleb Natapov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann On 12/22/2009 03:04 PM, Paul Brook wrote: >>> 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. >> > Ram allocations should be associated with a device. The VMState stuff this > should make this fairly straightforward. > > Guest address space mappings are a completely separate issue. The device > should be migrating the mappings (directly or via a PCI BAR) as part of its > state migration. The ram regions might not be mapped into guest address space > at all. > Yes, this is essentially Anthony's reply (which I agree with). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function