I'd like to hear Roman's opinion on this too since he wrote the initial
implementation. As for the command line arguments I was looking at
<qemu:commandline> since it's doing exactly the same thing and I thought
it would be nice to be consistent with it
Regards,
Ivan
On 08/10/2018 05:57 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
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
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
