Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 05:26:47PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > [...] >> There are countless mistakes in both QEMU & libvirt, but only some of >> them are worth the cost of changing. Agreed. >> I'm not seeing a compelling reason >> why this change is worthwhile. The impact of the design mistake is narrow >> and only raised because of downstream desire to change even legacy OS >> to use Q35 when there's no benefit to those OS of such a change. > > I think you underestimate the impact of the design mistake. And overstate the "this is just for a downstream need". > Maintaining and working around badly designed interfaces have > costs. > > The virtio device model was already an obstacle when designing > new bus/device introspection interfaces. It will be an obstacle > for adding mechanisms to tell applications that legacy virtio > devices can't be plugged on PCI Express slots. Thus, there's a genuine upstream motivation to clean up this mess. Whether it's worthwhile is of course a fair question. The argument for "it is worthwhile" I like to see in general is patches. > Anyway, if we want to fix the design mistake it wouldn't make > sense to do it only on the libvirt side and not on QEMU. We can > address that on QEMU first, and then let libvirt decide how to > handle it. Yes. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
