[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for 2013-06-11

From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for 2013-06-11
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:45:51 +0300

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:24:31PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Juan is not available now, and Anthony asked for
> agenda to be sent early.
> So here comes:
> Agenda for the meeting Tue, June 11:
> - Generating acpi tables, redux

Not so much notes as a quick summary of the call:

There are the following reasons to generate ACPI tables in QEMU:

- sharing code with e.g. ovmf
        Anthony thinks this is not a valid argument

- so we can make tables more dynamic and move away from iasl
        Anthony thinks this is not a valid reason too,
        since qemu and seabios have access to same info
        MST noted several info not accessible to bios.
        Anthony said they can be added, e.g. by exposing
        QOM to the bios.

- even though most tables are static, hardcoded
  they are likely to change over time
        Anthony sees this as justified

To summarize, there's a concensus now that generating ACPI
tables in QEMU is a good idea.

Two issues that need to be addressed:
- original patches break cross-version migration. Need to fix that.

- Anthony requested that patchset is merged together with
  some new feature. I'm not sure the reasoning is clear:
  current a version intentionally generates tables
  that are bug for bug compatible with seabios,
  to simplify testing.

  It seems clear we have users for this such as
  hotplug of devices behind pci bridges, so
  why keep the infrastructure out of tree?

  Looking for something additional, smaller as the hotplug patch
  is a bit big, so might delay merging.

Going forward - would we want to move
smbios as well? Everyone seems to think it's a
good idea.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]