From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36826)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1VCn7G-0001mC-8X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 04:53:18 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1VCn74-0002Sz-Ow
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 04:53:10 -0400
Received: from mail-ee0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c00::22f]:52005)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1VCn74-0002Se-IZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 04:52:58 -0400
Received: by mail-ee0-f47.google.com with SMTP id d49so163066eek.34
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 01:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <521722BB.6080107@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:52:11 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1377187852-11192-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<87mwo9smjf.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <52164FFD.5030101@redhat.com>
	<521663A9.6040207@redhat.com> <87eh9lqyhp.fsf@codemonkey.ws>
	<5216766B.8030709@redhat.com>
	<CA+aC4kt9X1iEHogo1q526sPwExapG-qv0_d7Kn60AjpBdHWEPg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+aC4kt9X1iEHogo1q526sPwExapG-qv0_d7Kn60AjpBdHWEPg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] pvpanic plans?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: pkrempa@redhat.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, libvir-list@redhat.com, hutao@cn.fujitsu.com, marcel.a@redhat.com, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, rhod@redhat.com, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>

Il 22/08/2013 22:39, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 08/22/13 22:09, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> The difference is that ACPI or platform devices in general are
>>> unexpected to be added.  By definition it means that the motherboard has
>>> most likely been changed.
>>
>> You could encounter a new ACPI artifact after simply re-flashing your MB
>> with an updated BIOS, without opening the chassis. "If windows can't
>> deal with that, their loss!" :)
> 
> I'm pretty sure "does Windows boot up okay" is on every major vendor's
> firmware test plan for shipping new updates...

For a firmware vendor it is perfectly okay to ship and require new
drivers for functionality introduced by a firmware update...

Paolo