On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:47:44AM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 09:31 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 07:55:19AM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > This patchseries aim to have OSes properly dealing with deprecated > > > and > > > removed devices. The path I've taken is: > > > > The notion of "removed" devices makes sense as a break to stop the > > inheritance from earlier OS version. > > > > I'm more interested in the notion of deprecated devices though. Can > > you give a clear example of where that would be used. To me this > > feels > > like an overly crude/coarse concept and so not convinced we should > > have > > that. > > I have to admit that I don't have a concret example that could be used > right now. However, what I had in mind while working on those patches > was the case of a, for instance, cpu. > > Let me try to explain ... *if* we have the "pc" type as part of osinfo- > db, we could just mark it as "deprecated" and apps would have a quite > easy way to check that instead of having to check different devices in > order to decide what to use (as done right now with q35). I don't think that's a good use of "deprecated". "pc" type is not deprecated from the POV of guest operating system, it is from the POV of the hypervisor. A guest OS will happily support one or the other, or both. The mgmt app should decide which is preferred based on its broader view of the system. > As this is *not* something that we'd have a practical use soon, I'm > more than fine on just dropping the patches related to the "deprecated" > notion. > > Do you want a v2 with the patches dropped? Yes please. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
