On 12/04/2011 05:19 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > In the sense that kernel-apic is just an accelerated apic. From the > > guest point of view, there's no difference, and that should be reflected > > in the device model. > > That was my goal as well: The guest should not notice the difference, > but the admin on the host side should still be able to tell both > internally fairly different models apart. This should be some attribute, not the name. > Plus the code should be > clearly split where there are differences and explicitly shared where > there aren't. That's a good goal, yes. > > > > > If I'm reading an apic register, either from the guest or via a monitor > > debug interface, I shouldn't care whether it's accelerated or not. The > > guest part already holds, of course. > > Specifically for the debug scenario, I'd prefer the clear > differentiation by name as there can always remain subtle differences in > the implementation of kernel vs. user space. Someone debugging the guest > and/or qemu/kvm should remain aware of this. Aware, yes, but the name change is too drastic. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
