On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:17:19PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 06/27/2013 09:47 PM, David Gibson wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:45:45PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >> Currently XICS interrupt controller is not a QEMU device. As we are going > >> to support in-kernel emulated XICS which is a part of KVM, it make > >> sense not to extend the existing XICS and have multiple KVM stub functions > >> but to create yet another device and share pieces between fully emulated > >> XICS and in-kernel XICS. > > > > Hmm. So, I think changing the xics to the qdev/qom framework is a > > generally good idea. But I'm not convinced its a good idea to have > > different devices for the kernel and non-kernel xics. > > The idea came from Alex Graf, this is already done for openpic/openpic-kvm. > The normal practice is to move ioctls to KVM to KVM code and provide empty > stubs for non-KVM case. There were too many so having a separate xics-kvm > is kind of help. > > > > Won't that > > prevent migrating from a system with a kernel xics to one without, or > > vice versa? > > Mmm. Do we care much about that?...
Enough to avoid making it impossible by design. > At the moment it is not supported that as VMStateDescription have different > .name for xics and xics-kvm but easy to fix. And we do not pass a device to > vmstate_register so that must be it. Ok, if you can make the ids in the vmsd match, then that should be ok. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
pgp7HrfXMc7Gk.pgp
Description: PGP signature