On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:26:32AM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 17:43 +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 05:42:27PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > We can finally introduce a specific target model for the pl011 device > > > used by mach-virt guests, which means isa-serial will no longer show > > > up to confuse users. > > > > > > We make sure migration works in both directions by interpreting the > > > isa-serial target type, or the lack of target type, appropriately > > > when parsing the guest XML, and skipping the newly-introduced type > > > when formatting if for migration. We also verify that pl011 is not > > > used for non-mach-virt guests and add a bunch of test cases. > > > > > > Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151292 > > > > I'm not sure that 'system' is a good name for serial type for mach-virt, > > it kind of feels like too generic name. Can we use the "apb-serial" for > > mach-virt? I understand that the "apb" name might not be well known but > > at least people that work closely with ARM machines have a chance to > > understand it better than "system" name. > > I was discussing the naming issue with a QEMU developer focusing on > aarch64 and he admitted never hearing about "APB" at all ;) > > Apparently that's a really low-level implementation detail, which is > several layer down from a serial device. > > I know "system" is extremely generic and I don't like it either > because of that, but it's what the bus is commonly called among > people working on mach-virt, so it's probably the only reasonable > option :( > > > Either way, we should document > > it better than just listing it as a valid value for type, at least > > mention that it's valid for ARM/mach-virt machine and that it's a system > > bus or something like that. The standalone "system" doesn't make it > > clear what it actually is. > > Do you mean in the code (in which case, where exactly?) or in the > documentation? Usually we just list the available values without > much of an explanation, and I kinda like that because it means we > don't need to duplicate in writing the kind of checks that we have > already implemented in code, but in this case the options should > change infrequently enough and be specific enough that mentioning > at least some of the constraints in the documentation as well. In documentation, the "system" name is meaningless without mentioning that it is a system bus for mach-virt. It might be clear to mach-virt people but for majority users it will be confusing. The implementation is useless to users as well :). Pavel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
