On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 17:38 +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > <value>virtio-scsi</value> > > > <value>lsisas1078</value> > > > + <value>virtio-transitional</value> > > > + <value>virtio-non-transitional</value> > > > > As mentioned during the previous round of reviews, I think we should > > support model='virtio' (which would behave the same as the existing > > model='virtio-scsi') in order to have a nice, consistent experience > > for users and management application developers. > > If we add model='virtio' we should always translate it back to > 'virtio-scsi'. It's not a new model or new feature, it's just a > different name for existing model and we should not break management > applications that are already using 'virtio-scsi'. It would be > basically only alias. Definitely. > The question is whether it's useful, if > management application starts using 'virtio' when creating new guest it > would still had to be able to parse 'virtio-scsi' and my guess is that > it would not help at all. I agree that the value proposition is not that impressive once you've established the above. That said, implementing it is only going to take a couple of lines of code and it will allow applications that can afford to require very recent libvirt to only special-case SCSI controllers when parsing the configuration, instead of both when parsing and when formatting. I guess I just don't see a reason *not* to implement it. But if Cole doesn't want to go through with it that's fine, I can just post patches later myself :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
