On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:37:07PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > +static int piix3_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id)
> > +{
> > + PIIX3State *piix3 = opaque;
> > + piix3_update_irq_levels(piix3);
>
> Couldn't figure out why would we not want to
> propagate the interrupts here.
> Could you explain please?
> What happens if we do propagate them?
> Nothing bad, right?
I wanted to be just conservative.
If you are brave enough to change the behavior, I'm fine with propagating
interrupts.
If we propagate the interrupts, guest OS may see interrupts
unnecessarily/spuriously injected after load.
Probably such interrupts doesn't harm OSes, so there is nothing
bad in theory as you said.
On the other hand, I hesitated to change the existing behavior because
it would be very difficult to debug it and to test many OSes.
--
yamahata
