From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kuxbo-0005XU-QG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:04:20 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kuxbn-0005XA-4z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:04:20 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58583 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kuxbm-0005X5-SO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:04:18 -0400 Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.170.184]:6828) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kuxbn-0003P0-68 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:04:19 -0400 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m61so1426668rnd.8 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5d6222a80810281604g39708040kf710725dce6413dd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:04:16 -0200 From: "Glauber Costa" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add KVM support to QEMU In-Reply-To: <49078955.2090109@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1225224814-9875-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <1225224814-9875-2-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <1225224814-9875-3-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <49078707.5000109@redhat.com> <49078955.2090109@codemonkey.ws> 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 Cc: Glauber Costa , Gerd Hoffmann , kvm-devel , Avi Kivity On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> >> Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> >>> This patch only implements the bare minimum support to get a guest >>> booting. It >>> has very little impact the rest of QEMU and attempts to integrate nicely >>> with >>> the rest of QEMU. >>> >> >> Huh? That isn't based on the qemu-accel patches ... >> > > This is part of the reason for this exercise. I'd rather introduce KVM > support first and then look at abstracting things, than vice versa. A > number of the hooks in the current QEMUAccel tree are there for the wrong > reason (to support the out-of-tree IO thread, for instance). > > If you just introduce something with various hooks and say, these are hooks > we'll need, it's not possible to really evaluate whether the hooks are > needed because nothing in the tree makes use of them. We talked extensively on monday about it, and I'm in agreement with it. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > >> surprised, >> Gerd >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > > > -- Glauber Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."