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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to