* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > On 23/09/2015 11:36, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > Also it's QEMU bug/fault and pushing workaround to upper layers > > doesn't seem right when it's much easier to do it in QEMU itself. > > No, it's virtio's bug. It makes sense to push workaround for guest bugs > as far from the hypervisor as possible.
But you really don't want to have higher level things having to align addresses themselves. I could see adding an option for the required alignment would be OK. > If we want to increase the alignment in QEMU, I would prefer to have > natural alignment which makes some sense and happens to work around the > bug as well. Michael, Eduardo, any third opinions? > By natural alignment do you mean that an 'n MB' DIMM gets aligned to 'n MB' ? Dave > Paolo -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
