[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Qemu-devel] Re: Build currently broken
From: |
Jan Kiszka |
Subject: |
[Qemu-devel] Re: Build currently broken |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:05:40 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:18:29PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>
>>>> In QEMU you mean?
>>>>
>>>> The first commit introducing it seems to be
>>>> e22a25c9361c44995c9241c24df0e1e2c47a56c8 , but I have no idea
>>>> on how this macro and its code are being used.
>>>>
>>> No, I was asking when it was introduced in KVM. We have a minimal
>>> set of capabilities that we require. It looks like
>>> KVM_CAP_SET_GUEST_DEBUG arrived shortly after
>>> KVM_CAP_DESTROY_MEMORY_REGION which is our current minimum.
>>>
That's true, and that's why we have to test for it.
>> How will this minimum change if we start backporting things like
>> memory aliasing
>> broken for qemu?
>>
>
> Good question. I don't know. I really hate to have all of these #ifdef
> KVM_CAPs all over the place though.
>
> Maybe we should re-examine pulling in kvm header files.
>
Yes, I also once discussed this with Avi: We could drop all that
build-time checks if we always carry sufficiently recent headers. Same
is true for qemu-kvm, where the clutter is even worse (as it has much
more features).
Jan
PS: Ceterum censeo we don't need legacy support beyond our current level.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature