On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:11:57PM +0300, Ivan Mishonov wrote: > 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 It would still be reasonable to allow <bhvyve:commandline> for arbitrary passthrough of new features which have no XML defined for them. I just think it is reasonable to model these two example explicitly. The namespaced passthrough is intended for short term hacks primarily. > 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 > 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
