Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [v5][PATCH 0/5] xen: add Intel IGD passthrough support

[Ross Philipson <Ross.Philipson@citrix.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonzini@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 7:33 AM
> To: Ross Philipson; Michael S. Tsirkin; Stefano Stabellini
> Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; xen-devel@lists.xensource.com; Allen M.
> Kay; Kelly.Zytaruk@amd.com; qemu-devel@nongnu.org;
> yang.z.zhang@intel.com; anthony@codemonkey.ws; Anthony Perard; Chen,
> Tiejun
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [v5][PATCH 0/5] xen: add Intel IGD passthrough
> support
> 
> Il 01/07/2014 19:39, Ross Philipson ha scritto:
> >
> > We do IGD pass-through in our project (XenClient). The patches
> > originally came from our project. We surface the same ISA bridge and
> > have never had activation issues on any version of Widows from XP to
> > Win8. We do not normally run server platforms so I can't say for sure
> > there.
> 
> The problem is not activation, the problem is that the patches are
> making assumptions on the driver and the firmware that might work today
> but are IMHO just not sane.

Sure I don't think anybody is suggesting that activation is
the main problem. It was just a potential problem with respect
to one of the proposed solutions.

When we first started doing this (back in 2009ish) we ran into
all these problems with surfacing ISA bridges, giving guest
drivers access to registers in the host bridge. etc. Nothing seemed
sane; I sympathize. 

> 
> I would have no problem with a clean patchset that adds a new machine
> type and doesn't touch code in "-M pc", but it looks like mst disagrees.
>   Ultimately, if a patchset is too hacky for upstream, you can include
> it in your downstream XenClient (and XenServer) QEMU branch.  It
> happens.
> 
> Paolo
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3986/7769 - Release Date:
> 06/30/14