On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 08:44:17AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > To be honest, I kinds dislike all of them. Not that they would be > chosen poorly, no, it's simply because the good sensible choice is > unavailable due to another poor decision in the past (this may be > another point for Michal's talk on KVM Forum). Thinking about it I > must say I don't like how target (which is supposed to match a place > where the device appears for the guest) is used for the model > specification, on the other hand (ab)using 'model' element for the > specification of an "address" in guest (that's what I understand > chassis and port are) doesn't feel any better. What if we go with two > of those elements? Would that be too much pain? E.g.: > > <controller type='pci model='pci-root-port' index='3'> > <address type='pci' bus='0' slot='4' function='1'> > <model type='ioh3420'/> > <target chassis='3' port='0x21'/> > </controller> > > I understand this might look like an overkill, but I think it's better > safe then sorry, I guess I just see us not so far in the future > regretting any decision made now. I'd be fine with this proposal too. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list