On 2012-01-06 10:19, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/05/2012 08:49 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> To me this still sounds like a cirrus-only xen workaround that >> nevertheless spreads widely. > > It is. > >> Again, what speaks against migrating the information Xen needs before >> creating the machine or a single device? That would only introduce a >> generic concept of an (optional) "early", let's call it >> "accelerator-related" vmstate and would allow Xen to deal with all the >> specifics behind the curtain. >> > > Adding more concepts, just to work around a bug (and this is really a > bug in the qemu/xen interface) makes it harder to refactor things later on.
Well, it's at least only a single concept, one that could even be used independently of Xen issues, while it appears to me like the other proposal comes with multiple ones. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
