Re: [PATCH] QEMU - provide e820 reserve through qemu_cfg

From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
To: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	KVM General <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Kevin O'Connor" <kevin@koconnor.net>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] QEMU - provide e820 reserve through qemu_cfg
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:04:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <A4568897-CA56-4F1B-A3C1-DDF4DBB84AF0@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B5DD8DE.7050100@redhat.com>

On 25.01.2010, at 18:46, Jes Sorensen wrote:

> On 01/25/10 18:28, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> That way we'd get 2 entries and the chance to enhance them later on.
>>>> In fact, it might even make sense to pass the whole table in such a
>>>> form. That way qemu generates all of the e820 tables and we can
>>>> declare whatever we want. Just add a type field in the table.
>>> 
>>> I am fine with having QEMU build the e820 tables completely if there is
>>> a consensus to take that path.
>> 
>> I agree. We better get this right :-). I don't want to maintain 5
>> versions of an 380 fw_cfg interface.
> 
> Looking at the internals, some of the e820 entries are based on compile
> time constants for the BIOS, so it will be hard to pass those from
> QEMU, but we could do it in a way so we pass a number of additional
> e820 entries. Ie. address, length, and type.

Yes, sounds good. Should be fairly extensible then. What about memory holes? Do we need to take care of them?

Alex