On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:12:06AM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> The change was:
> -VMSTATE_UINTTL_EQUAL(env.spr[SPR_PVR], PowerPCCPU),
> +VMSTATE_UNUSED(sizeof(target_ulong)), /* was
> _EQUAL(env.spr[SPR_PVR]) */
>
> so it was always a target-long rather than a portable
* Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:56:40AM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > VTD_RTADDR_RTT is dropped even by the VT-d spec, so QEMU should
> > > probably do the same thing (after all we never really implemented it)
I didn't really CC David and Alexey, I'm doing it again...
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 12:55:38PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:56:40AM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > VTD_RTADDR_RTT is dropped even by the VT-d spec, so QEMU sh
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:56:40AM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > VTD_RTADDR_RTT is dropped even by the VT-d spec, so QEMU should
> > probably do the same thing (after all we never really implemented it).
> > Since we've had a field for that in the
* Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> VTD_RTADDR_RTT is dropped even by the VT-d spec, so QEMU should
> probably do the same thing (after all we never really implemented it).
> Since we've had a field for that in the migration stream, to keep
> compatibility we need to fill the hole up.
>
> Plea
VTD_RTADDR_RTT is dropped even by the VT-d spec, so QEMU should
probably do the same thing (after all we never really implemented it).
Since we've had a field for that in the migration stream, to keep
compatibility we need to fill the hole up.
Please refer to VT-d spec 10.4.6.
Signed-off-by: Pete
