On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 04:56:30PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > So far, libvirt has assumed that only x86 supports ACPI, > but that's inaccurate since aarch64 supports it too. > > Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429509 > --- > Advertising ACPI support in capabilities means that tools > such as virt-manager will start automatically adding the > <acpi/> element for new guests. > > However, existing guests are likely to lack that element > and will suddenly lose ACPI capabilities: that could make > them unbootable if the guest OS only supports booting via > ACPI, which on the other hand is AFAIK not the case for > current mainstream OSs. Current Linux policy is to boot based on Device Tree, if both Device Tree & ACPI are advertized to the guest. If we stop advertizing ACPI for guests without <acpi/>, then QEMU would only present Device Tree, which is what any Linux guest will have already been using. So while you're right that this is a semantic change, I think it is reasonable to make this, as I expect the fallout to be minimal, and it is easy to deal with by just adding <acpi/> if it turned out to be a problem for specific guest OS types. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
