On 08/13/2018 11:00 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 08:22:08PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
Ivan Mishonov wrote:
Yes, that makes sense. I'll try to find some time next week to redo my
code and send another patch. Since my time for working on libvirt is
very limited can you confirm that the LPC configuration should look like
this:
<controller type="isa-bridge" index="0">
<address type="pci" domain="0" bus="0" slot="NNN" function="0"/>
</controller>
This looks reasonable to me. However, it adds some corner cases we need to
handle:
1. I'm wondering if we should still default to 31 if this entry is not specified?
We can generate this entry when post-processing XML, but I'm not sure
what's the best way to handle upgrades for the existing domains...
It depends if the BHyve driver is at a point where you consider stable
upgrades important or not. It could be valid for you to just change the
default to 31 if you think its better and upgrade stability is not
required yet.
I decided to check what vm-bhyve does.
https://github.com/churchers/vm-bhyve/blob/master/lib/vm-run#L367. They
seem to always place LPC at slot 31 so I guess it's safe to move it
2. According to bhyve(8) manual page, lpc is only supported on bus 0, so
need to add 'isa-bridge' specific validation to check that.
If its only supported in 1 address, then arguably you don't need to add
this at all - just fix the historically mistaken use of 31 in the code
and leave it out of XML.
Yes, we might not need that option at all
Regards,
Daniel
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
