Glauber Costa wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 06:22:48PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 06:17:57PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 10/08/2009 06:07 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > > >Haven't we already confirmed that it *isn't* just an ioapic accelerator > > > >because you can't migrate between in-kernel iopic and qemu's ioapic? > > > > > > We haven't confirmed it. Both implement the same spec, and if you > > > can't migrate between them, one of them has a bug (for example, qemu > > > ioapic doesn't implement polarity - but it's still just a bug). > > > > > Are you saying that HW spec (that only describes software visible behavior) > > completely defines implementation? No other internal state is needed > > that may be done differently by different implementations? > Most specifications leaves a lot as implementation specific. > > It's not hard to imagine a case in which both devices will follow > the spec correctly, (no bugs involved), and yet differ in the > implementation. Avi's not saying the implementations won't differ. I believe he's saying that implementation-specific states don't need to be saved if they have no effect on guest visible behaviour. -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
