On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:30:47PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote: > "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Adding Alex & Bandan, since they signed off the kernel patch which > > I'm thinking either pci-back should be made to work more like > > vfio, or the kernel patch should be reverted or fixed to take > > account of the way pci-back works. > > > > Whichever way, I don't consider this a libvirt problem to solve. As > > Linus' always says - the kernel must never break existing userspace > > Agreed, but in this specific case, the usage is unsafe since unknown indexes > are potentially being passed to the driver operations. It should always have been > 3. to begin with. Whether the userspace usage is good or not is irrelevant - this kernel change has broken existing userspace apps and that is not acceptable and must be fixed. I'm fine with suggestions to change future libvirt to work in a better way, but we need to fix the regressions seen by *current* libvirt releases 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