Hi Marc, On 07/11/2017 16:38, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 07/11/17 15:24, Auger Eric wrote: >> Hi Marc, >> >> Hi Marc, >> On 27/10/2017 16:28, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> The GICv4 architecture doesn't make it easy for save/restore to >>> work, as it doesn't give any guarantee that the pending state >>> is written into the pending table. >> >> I don't understand where does the limitation exactly come from. Can't we >> use the GICR_VPENDBASER table data? > You can't. None of the tables that are written by either the ITS or the > redistributors are architected. All you know is that there is one bit > per vLPI, but that's it (you don't even know which one is which). Oh I thought the redistributor config and pending tables were fully specified (6.1.2 and 6.1.3 of the spec), except the 1kB of the pending table. > > But that's not a big deal. I don't think you can realistically migrate a > VM that has a directly assigned device anyway. Or can we? No we can't except for mediated devices for which migration can be supported.
Thanks Eric > > Thanks, > > M. > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
