On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 08:04:13PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > If we can't start a new qemu with the same hardware configuration then we
> > > should not be allowing migration or loading of snapshots.
> >
> > OK, so I'll add an option in virtio-net to disable msi-x, and such
> > an option will b
> > If we can't start a new qemu with the same hardware configuration then we
> > should not be allowing migration or loading of snapshots.
>
> OK, so I'll add an option in virtio-net to disable msi-x, and such
> an option will be added in any device with msi-x support.
> Will that address your con
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 06:30:16PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 June 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:46:03PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > > > If you can't create an identical machine from scratch then I don't
> > > > > consider snapshot/migration to be
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:46:03PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > If you can't create an identical machine from scratch then I don't
> > > consider snapshot/migration to be a useful feature. i.e. as soon as you
> > > shutdown and restart the guest it is liable to break anyway.
> >
> > Why is liable
On Wednesday 10 June 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:46:03PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > > If you can't create an identical machine from scratch then I don't
> > > > consider snapshot/migration to be a useful feature. i.e. as soon as
> > > > you shutdown and restart
> > If you can't create an identical machine from scratch then I don't
> > consider snapshot/migration to be a useful feature. i.e. as soon as you
> > shutdown and restart the guest it is liable to break anyway.
>
> Why is liable to break?
A VM booted on an old version of qemu and migrated to a ne
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:08:15PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 June 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 04:15:04PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > > > That's seems just plain wrong to me.
> > > > > Loading a VM shouldn't not
> > > > > do anything that can't hap
On Wednesday 10 June 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 04:15:04PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > > That's seems just plain wrong to me.
> > > > Loading a VM shouldn't not
> > > > do anything that can't happen during normal operation.
> > >
> > > At least wrt pci, we are very
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 04:15:04PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > That's seems just plain wrong to me.
> > > Loading a VM shouldn't not
> > > do anything that can't happen during normal operation.
> >
> > At least wrt pci, we are very far from this state: load just overwrites
> > all registers, rea
> > That's seems just plain wrong to me.
> > Loading a VM shouldn't not
> > do anything that can't happen during normal operation.
>
> At least wrt pci, we are very far from this state: load just overwrites
> all registers, readonly or not, which can never happen during normal
> operation.
IMO tha
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:39:05PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > If we really need to avoid MSI-X capable devices then that should be done
> > > explicity per-device. i.e. you have a different virtio-net device that
> > > does not use MSI-X.
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> > Why should it be done per-devic
> > If we really need to avoid MSI-X capable devices then that should be done
> > explicity per-device. i.e. you have a different virtio-net device that
> > does not use MSI-X.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Why should it be done per-device?
Because otherwise you end up with the horrible hacks that you're curr
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:07:34PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > > Note that platform must set a flag to declare MSI supported.
> > > > For PC this will be set by APIC.
> > >
> > > This sounds wrong. The device shouldn't know or care whether the system
> > > has a MSI capable interrupt controller.
> > > Note that platform must set a flag to declare MSI supported.
> > > For PC this will be set by APIC.
> >
> > This sounds wrong. The device shouldn't know or care whether the system
> > has a MSI capable interrupt controller. That's for the guest OS to figure
> > out.
>
> You are right of cours
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:19:42AM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Monday 25 May 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Add functions implementing MSI-X support. First user will be virtio-pci.
> > Note that platform must set a flag to declare MSI supported.
> > For PC this will be set by APIC.
>
> This
On Monday 25 May 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Add functions implementing MSI-X support. First user will be virtio-pci.
> Note that platform must set a flag to declare MSI supported.
> For PC this will be set by APIC.
This sounds wrong. The device shouldn't know or care whether the system has
16 matches
Mail list logo
