|
From: | Avi Kivity |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup |
Date: | Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:25:44 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100720 Fedora/3.1.1-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.1.1 |
On 08/23/2010 01:18 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
I certainly don't, but others may. However, the problem remains: every time real hardware doesn't fit our pretty model we'll drop support for that hardware?No, every time real hardware doesn't fit out pretty model and nobody really cares, we don't care. Seriously - would you want to start off modeling everything so that EISA and MCA fit in too?
Look how this developed: 1. apic.c has an incestuous relationship with the cpu 2. let's make them one and the same 3. but in real life they're not one and the same in some cases 4. including some we support 5. let's drop support for those vs 1. hardware isn't a tree 2. we have to live with thatDropping support for 486 is fine, but let's not do it because we want to model hardware in a way that's different from reality
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |