On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > As you see, ioapic at 0xfec00000 overlaps pci-hole. >> > ioapic is guest programmable in theory - should use _overlap? >> > pci-hole is not but can overlap with ioapic. >> > So also _overlap? >> >> It's a bug. The ioapic is in the pci address space, not the system >> address space. And yes it's overlappable. > > So you want to put it where? Under pci-hole?
No, under the pci address space. Look at the 440fx block diagram. > And we'll have to teach all machine types > creating pci-hole about it? No. > >> > >> > Let's imagine someone writes a guest programmable device for >> > ARM. Now we should update all ARM devices from regular to _overlap? >> >> It's sufficient to update the programmable device. > > Then the device can be higher priority (works for apic) > but not lower priority. Make priority signed? Is there an actual real problem that needs fixing?