From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39361) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UHWnT-0005A7-7r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:56:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UHWnJ-0001f4-9w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:56:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35278) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UHWnI-0001en-W4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:55:53 -0400 Message-ID: <5146E47B.1090902@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:55:07 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1363251073-20380-1-git-send-email-hutao@cn.fujitsu.com> <1363376111.2553.6.camel@x230.sbx07502.somerma.wayport.net> In-Reply-To: <1363376111.2553.6.camel@x230.sbx07502.somerma.wayport.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] pvevent: pvevent device driver List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Peter Maydell , Gleb Natapov , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Hu Tao , qemu-devel , Markus Armbruster , Blue Swirl , Orit Wasserman , Juan Quintela , Alexander Graf , Christian Borntraeger , Jan Kiszka , "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Jones , Alex Williamson , Sasha Levin , Stefan Hajnoczi , Luiz Capitulino , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Kevin Wolf , Anthony Liguori , Marcelo Tosatti , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Il 15/03/2013 20:35, Matthew Garrett ha scritto: > On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 16:51 +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > >> + { "MSFT0001", 0}, > > This seems wrong, and it looks like qemu agrees. Can you resubmit when > there's agreement on the name? > >> + acpi_evaluate_object(handle, "WRPT", &arg_list, NULL); > > Is there a spec for this? Not yet. Hu, in the next version of your QEMU patches you probably will not need anymore usage information in docs/pvevent.txt. Instead, please add a spec for both the ISA and ACPI interfaces in docs/spec/pvevent.txt. > Is the only reason for this to allow guests to notify the host that > they've panicked? It seems like making use of pstore to push the crash > dump to the host. as well would be a useful thing to do. Since we try to limit the amount of VM-specific interfaces we have (yeah, I know this is one), that would mean implementing APEI in QEMU, I guess. It is definitely a useful thing to have, but a bit wider in scope than a simple device to distinguish idle and crashed VMs. Paolo