On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:43:04PM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
ATM it looks like we should test "Windows 2000" || "Windows 2001" || "Windows 2001 SP1" || "Windows 2001.1 SP1"
Including this may be too strict, what about 98/ME?
Isn't this past EOL?
So what? People try to use it with QEMU, and it's fair to assume it's worse than XP.
I agree it's likely but I don't think we should presume anything until it's tested.
&& !( "Windows 2006" || "Windows 2006.1" ||
We know that these are all implied by the following four:
"Windows 2006 SP1" || "Windows 2006 SP2" || "Windows 2009" || "Windows 2012" ||So it is not necessary to test these four.
True, but I don't see how this can harm us, and I'm trying to check as much as possible.
Fair enough.
"Linux" || "FreeBSD" ) && _OS == "Microsoft Windows NT" && _REV == 0x1
Testing _OS and _REV is probably too strict.
Why too strict? We want to only affect very specific guests. whatever we don't know about, let's not touch it.
In practice all OSes we care about will disguise themselves as Windows. I checked Solaris now and it follows Linux's lead: http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/intel/io/acpica/utilities/uteval.c?v=OPENSO...
I'm still worried about using _OSI. This makes it a risky change, guests do change behaviour depending on which _OSI are called. No way to tell what this will do without lots of testing.
I have an alternative idea: it looks like XP/2003 are the only OS-es which have _REV set to 0x1 which is the ancient API 1.0 spec.
Maybe it's enough to check _REV == 1 and _OS == windows ?
That's certainly lower risk from this POV, but need to check old Linux and other guests.
For whatever we don't know about, why should we assume 64-bit BARs work? Especially considering it's likely to be pretty old guests.
Paolo
There's no need to assume 64 bit BARs works. But I think we can assume guests don't crash. What windows does here is very unusual imho, guest should just say "I can't use this range so I won't" and allocate BARs somewhere else.