From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41543) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnvx3-0001Xn-5K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:39:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnvx1-00057F-53 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:39:05 -0500 Received: from david.siemens.de ([192.35.17.14]:24390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnvx0-000574-JT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:39:03 -0500 Message-ID: <4F185535.1060908@siemens.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:39:01 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F1810AF.8010002@siemens.com> <20120119172802.GD11381@amt.cnet> In-Reply-To: <20120119172802.GD11381@amt.cnet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we want -kvm-shadow-memory semantics? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Marcelo Tosatti , Avi Kivity Cc: qemu-devel , kvm On 2012-01-19 18:28, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:46:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> do we need some KVM knob comparable to qemu-kvm's -kvm-shadow-memory in >> upstream? >> >> If yes: The underlying IOCTL is x86-only. Are other archs interested in >> this long-term as well, ie. should the control become arch-independent? >> >> Jan > > Last time i asked about removal, Avi wished for it to remain. > Then I guess he should comment on this after returning to work. :) Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux