On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 16:35, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I'd prefer an unified device built from a single source file if possible. This conflicts with the build-once model though. >> >> > >> > 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. It should be also possible to migrate from non-KVM device to KVM version, different names would prevent that for ever. -- 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
