On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 05:47:40PM +0300, Ivan Mishonov wrote: > Yes, this is totally doable. I just don't know if it's a good idea to add a > new device type specifically for bhyve LPC and nothing else. Even if we do > it like this I'll still have to send another patch including the bhyve XML > namespace as we need to be able to pass extra command line options to the > bhyve process related to unimplemented MSRs on AMD Zen systems. I thought > I'd do the 2 things in a similar manner as both of them are strictly bhyve > specific IMHO the LPC thing is definitely in scope for correct modelling in the XML. For the MSRs option, it is probable we'd consider that in scope as well. Currently KVM has a global "ignore unknown msrs" option in the kernel module, but I think it is conceptually reasonable to expect that to be settable on a per-VM basis. Probably would do the MSRs thing as a <features> flag, as we stuff lots of random feature toggles under there 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 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
