On 10/17/18 12:59 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 08:46:19AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
I had some couch time at the start of the weekend and was finally able to
try using this series with virt-install. As it turns out, reporting
duplicate <guest> blocks for <os_type> 'xen' is not quite right. Instead we
will want to report the additional <machine> under the existing 'xen'
<guest> blocks.
Is that virt-install limitation? In that case, IMO virt-install should
be fixed, instead of changing capabilities xml to match its limitations.
Perhaps it is a virt-install limitation, but my suggestion was based more on how
the qemu driver reports the different machines
<guest>
<os_type>hvm</os_type>
<arch name='x86_64'>
<wordsize>64</wordsize>
<emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64</emulator>
<machine maxCpus='255'>pc-i440fx-3.0</machine>
<machine maxCpus='288'>pc-q35-3.0</machine>
...
</arch>
</guest>
Compare that with reporting PV and PVH in different <guest> blocks, where the
<os_type> and <arch> are the same. It seems confusing from a consumers POV
<guest>
<os_type>xen</os_type>
<arch name='x86_64'>
<wordsize>64</wordsize>
<emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64</emulator>
<machine>xenpv</machine>
</arch>
</guest>
<guest>
<os_type>xen</os_type>
<arch name='x86_64'>
<wordsize>64</wordsize>
<emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64</emulator>
<machine>xenpvh</machine>
</arch>
</guest>
How should a consumer interpret that? Is the machine for os_type=xen,
arch=x86_64 a xenpv or a xenpvh?
Regards,
Jim
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
