qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 28/35] kvm: x86: Introduce kvmclock device to sa


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 28/35] kvm: x86: Introduce kvmclock device to save/restore its state
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:54:10 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.10

On 01/19/2011 07:11 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann<address@hidden>  writes:

On 01/18/11 18:09, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/18/2011 10:56 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
The device model topology is 100% a hidden architectural detail.
This is true for the sysbus, it is obviously not the case for PCI and
similarly discoverable buses. There we have a guest-explorable topology
that is currently equivalent to the the qdev layout.
But we also don't do PCI passthrough so we really haven't even explored
how that maps in qdev. I don't know if qemu-kvm has attempted to
qdev-ify it.
It is qdev-ified.  It is a normal pci device from qdev's point of view.

BTW: is there any reason why (vfio-based) pci passthrough couldn't
work with tcg?

The -device interface is a stable interface. Right now, you don't
specify any type of identifier of the pci bus when you create a PCI
device. It's implied in the interface.
Wrong.  You can specify the bus you want attach the device to via
bus=<name>.  This is true for *every* device, including all pci
devices. If unspecified qdev uses the first bus it finds.

As long as there is a single pci bus only there is simply no need to
specify it, thats why nobody does that today.  Once q35 finally
arrives this will change of course.
As far as I know, libvirt does it already.

I think that's a bad idea from a forward compatibility perspective.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]