On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:54:35PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 19 February 2013 15:51, Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2013-02-19 16:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> qdev_init_nofail(dev); > >> d = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(dev); > >> - sysbus_mmio_map(d, 0, 0xfec00000); > >> + /* APIC overlaps the PCI window. */ > >> + sysbus_mmio_map_overlap(d, 0, 0xfec00000, 1000); > > > > That's the IOAPIC, not the APIC. If you mean the IOAPIC, APIC and HPET > > would require higher prio, too. But I suppose this is really about the > > APIC and its special priority due to CPU-local access dispatching, right? > > Is this a proposed minimally invasive patch for 1.4 with a > different approach (possibly involving reworking things with > a better managed set of container regions) for master, or > is this the planned fix for master too? > > -- PMM
I think it's a reasonable thing to do long-term. -- MST
