On 09/17/2010 06:11 AM, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 07:53:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 09/16/2010 08:47 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:15:28PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >>>> This uses a new cmos port at 0x5e that shall read zero to be backwards >>>> compatible. >>> It looks okay to me. Can you provide an Acked-by from one of the qemu >>> or kvm maintainers? >> >> Is CMOS the best place to communicate this (as opposed to fw_cfg)? >> >> I know we currently expose memory size via CMOS but perhaps it's >> better to switch to a 64-bit fw_cfg value. > > I'd personally prefer fw_cfg. > > Also, another possibility would be to stop sending an absolute max and > to instead send a map of memory. The latter would allow for > non-contiguous memory. >
That would be highly useful for testing purposes. -hpa