Re: [Qemu-devel] [4261] Errors while registering ioports are not fatal (Glauber Costa).

["Glauber Costa" <glommer@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 4:57 PM, andrzej zaborowski <balrogg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/04/2008, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>  > On Saturday 26 April 2008, Andrzej Zaborowski wrote:
>  >  > Revision: 4261
>  >  >           http://svn.sv.gnu.org/viewvc/?view=rev&root=qemu&revision=4261
>  >  > Author:   balrog
>  >  > Date:     2008-04-26 16:04:29 +0000 (Sat, 26 Apr 2008)
>  >  >
>  >  > Log Message:
>  >  > -----------
>  >  > Errors while registering ioports are not fatal (Glauber Costa).
>  >
>  >  Why shouldn't they be fatal? How can this be anything other than a serious bug
>  >  in the device emulation?
>
>  This change is perhaps not useful, it would be useful with hot-plugged
>  / proxied pci devices.  I think they are desirable features. But the
>  patchsets submitted turn out to depend on too much kvm code to ever
>  work alone so I might just as well revert :(

Yes, reverting is probably better. I must confess I was surprised to
see this going in alone.
It is highly kvm dependant, because it was written in the context of
pci passtrough. In the mails I sent,
qemu-devel copied, I explicitly said it was an RFC. Reason?
As aliguori said, the callers must all be fixed, and it was not
something I was willing to do if the patches were not to be accepted.
Unfortunately the patches got no attention at the time, but I'm happy
to see the it happening now.
As for being dependant of kvm code, the patches were written in the
context of kvm pci-passthrough. And that´s why.

>  You might not want qemu to quit a running session if it's possible to
>  continue running, even if there turns out to be a serious bug.
>
>  Regards
>
>
>



-- 
Glauber Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."