On 19 July 2012 15:13, Alexander Graf <address@hidden> wrote:
On 07/19/2012 02:00 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 19 July 2012 12:43, Avi Kivity <address@hidden> wrote:
Let's make them even more similar, by removing !in_kernel_irqchip.
Mmm, I do rather want to just mandate use of the VGIC...
(somebody will probably come along later and try to get A9
guests working with KVM acceleration but I don't think it
will be me :-))
Heh. I would really like to keep the !in_kernel_irqchip path (so only an EXT
IRQ line exposed) available for PPC at least. It has helped tremendously in
the past to be able to just throw a few debug printfs into QEMU and/or
compare with TCG what's happening when things go wrong.
I think the difficulty here is that QEMU's in_kernel_irqchip
test is being used for two things:
* which APIC model etc should we use?
* details of the synchronous vs asynchronous model (for instance
whether halt is handled by cpus.c depends on this: cpu_thread_is_idle
always returns false if kvm_irqchip_in_kernel())
because for x86 these two things happen for historical reasons
to be in sync. The non-x86 architectures probably need to separate
them out so that we are always using the 'asynchronous inject'
model but may (architecture-dependent) allow the user to pick
which irqchip model gets used.