From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38134 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJ78W-0006cG-RF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:15:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJ78V-0003mR-FJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:15:00 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35389) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJ78V-0003mJ-5K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:14:59 -0500 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAIGEwhc006433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:14:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:14:48 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] spice: add qxl device Message-ID: <20101118161448.GB9490@redhat.com> References: <20101118113308.GC31261@redhat.com> <20101118115529.GJ7948@redhat.com> <20101118120311.GA31987@redhat.com> <20101118122726.GM7948@redhat.com> <20101118140414.GE8247@redhat.com> <20101118145755.GT7948@redhat.com> <20101118152548.GA10273@redhat.com> <20101118154241.GX7948@redhat.com> <20101118160456.GA11273@redhat.com> <20101118161012.GA7948@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101118161012.GA7948@redhat.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:10:12PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > WHQL includes surprise removal tests. So any card that passed > > that will work with surprise removal. > > > Yeah. But it is not real "surprise removal". It will not crash qemu. That was the problem I saw. That the way qxl is written, surprise removal could crash qemu. > > > > I expect surprise removal to be of most use for > > > > assigned devices. But even for emulated devices, we have a small > > > > number of slots available, so it would still be useful to free up the PCI slot, > > > > even if guest needs to be rebooted then. > > > > > > > We are talking about should we require primary VGA to be > > > hot-unplaggable. The last thing you want to remove to free PCI slots is > > > primary VGA card especially if no guest OS can handle it ;) > > > > What I am saying is we need surprise removal generally. > For all HW that we allow to remove from monitor sure. > > > If won't be too bad if we make these commands fail for VGA. > > > The patch is on the list already. That's good. If my review is needed, Cc me so it won't get lost in the noise. -- MST