From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JprC1-00062w-Kj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:40:21 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JprBz-000620-U0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:40:21 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46977 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JprBz-00061p-Ey for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:40:19 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.170]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JprBz-0000El-03 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:40:19 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so3378978wff.4 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5d6222a80804261339y279f5364k6f7cefcd540d6be4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:39:48 -0300 From: "Glauber Costa" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [4261] Errors while registering ioports are not fatal (Glauber Costa). In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200804262026.06396.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , Avi Kivity , balrogg@gmail.com, paul@codesourcery.com On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 4:57 PM, andrzej zaborowski wro= te: > > On 26/04/2008, Paul Brook wrote: > > On Saturday 26 April 2008, Andrzej Zaborowski wrote: > > > Revision: 4261 > > > http://svn.sv.gnu.org/viewvc/?view=3Drev&root=3Dqemu&revi= sion=3D4261 > > > 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 se= rious 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=B4s 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 > > > --=20 Glauber Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."