From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jprml-0001jA-KG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:18:19 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jprmh-0001iD-4K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:18:19 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45348 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jprmg-0001i2-TT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:18:14 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jprmg-0006Hj-FQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:18:14 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so399184uge.4 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:18:08 +0200 From: "andrzej zaborowski" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [4261] Errors while registering ioports are not fatal (Glauber Costa). In-Reply-To: <481393DB.2030101@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200804262026.06396.paul@codesourcery.com> <481393DB.2030101@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: Paul Brook On 26/04/2008, Anthony Liguori wrote: > andrzej zaborowski wrote: > > > On 26/04/2008, Paul Brook 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 :( > > > > > > It's not at all kvm specific. Even if QEMU never merged PCI hotplug > (although I see no reason why not to), it's the right direction to move > toward. Right, what I mean is I missed the fact that there had been more changes which didn't go into qemu on which Marcelo Tosatti's patches depended and it seems like this included rather significant changes. Regards