On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 03:00:22PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:03:12PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 04:54:25PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
> > > > > index 06fdbd9..c15ef33 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
> > > > > @@ -96,5 +96,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data {
> > > > > #define KVM_PV_EOI_ENABLED KVM_PV_EOI_MASK
> > > > > #define KVM_PV_EOI_DISABLED 0x0
> > > > >
> > > > > +#define KVM_PV_EVENT_PORT (0x505UL)
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > No need for the ioport to be hard coded. What are the options to
> > > > communicate an address to the guest? An MSR, via ACPI?
> > >
> > > I'm not quite understanding here. By 'address', you mean an ioport?
> > > how to communicate an address? (I have little knowledge about ACPI)
> >
> > Yes, the ioport. The address of the ioport should not be fixed (for
> > example future emulated board could use that fixed ioport address,
> > 0x505UL).
> >
> > One option is to pass the address via an MSR. Yes, that is probably the
> > best option because there is no dependency on ACPI.
> >
> Why dependency on ACPI is problematic? ACPI is the standard way on x86
> to enumerate platform devices. Passing it through MSR makes this panic
> device CPU interface which it is not. And since relying on #GP to detect
> valid MSRs is not good interface we will have to guard it by cpuid bit.
>
> --
> Gleb.
KVM guest <-> KVM host interface is not dependent on ACPI, so far. Say,
its possible to use a Linux guest without ACPI and have KVM paravirt
fully functional.
--
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
