On 03/07/2015 15:08, Don Slutz wrote: >>> >> Creating it at the pc level and propagating makes code >> messy but I'd go along with it if it made sense from >> user's point of view, but it does not seem to make sense: >> to me this looks more like a CPU feature than a machine property. >> Or the property of the vmport rpc device that you created. > > Well this is not a clear area. It does look more like a CPU feature. I > went with a machine feature because that is where "vmport" currently is.
I think it should be a vmport property. It would be cleaner to implement it using the MemTxAttrs mechanism, but for KVM I'm afraid it would be too slow (and the slowness would affect all I/O accesses, not just vmport ones, unless really ugly hacks are done). Paolo
