Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> writes: > On 1/14/26 10:19, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> This doesn't imply we should automatically rip it out, but if we see >> no evidence of (3) for a prolonged period of time, and no sign of it >> being used downstream in any way, it is worth considering the cost / >> benefit. >> >> In the case of NetBSD something must be working to some extent since >> it appears that 10.1.0 QEMU is present in the pkg repos: >> >> https://pkgsrc.se/emulators/qemu >> >> so that argues against ripping stuff out even if we notice breakage. > > And indeed their pkgsrc has the same patch that Philippe has now > submitted for inclusion in qemu.git: > > https://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/emulators/qemu/patches/patch-target_i386_nvmm_nvmm-all.c.diff?r1=1.10;r2=1.11 > > ---- target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c.orig 2024-11-20 22:48:05.000000000 +0000 > +--- target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c.orig 2025-08-26 18:32:38.000000000 +0000 > +++ target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c > -@@ -1057,7 +1057,11 @@ nvmm_process_section(MemoryRegionSection > +@@ -984,7 +984,7 @@ nvmm_init_vcpu(CPUState *cpu) > + } > + } > + > +- qcpu->vcpu_dirty = true; > ++ cpu->vcpu_dirty = true; > + cpu->accel = qcpu; > + > + return 0; > +@@ -1059,7 +1059,11 @@ nvmm_process_section(MemoryRegionSection > unsigned int delta; > uintptr_t hva;
That they didn't immediately post the fix upstream is a bit of a disappointment. Deep in the weeds, I guess.
