On 1/29/19 11:05 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 15:48 +0100, Ján Tomko wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 04:32:38PM -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
This adds QEMU_CAPS flags for the following devices
virtio-blk-pci-transitional
virtio-blk-pci-non-transitional
virtio-net-pci-transitional
virtio-net-pci-non-transitional
vhost-scsi-pci-transitional
vhost-scsi-pci-non-transitional
virtio-rng-pci-transitional
virtio-rng-pci-non-transitional
virtio-9p-pci-transitional
virtio-9p-pci-non-transitional
virtio-balloon-pci-transitional
virtio-balloon-pci-non-transitional
vhost-vsock-pci-transitional
vhost-vsock-pci-non-transitional
virtio-input-host-pci-transitional
virtio-input-host-pci-non-transitional
virtio-scsi-pci-transitional
virtio-scsi-pci-non-transitional
virtio-serial-pci-transitional
virtio-serial-pci-non-transitional
This seems excessive, is there a plan to retire the transitional
devices? I don't expect anyone creating a QEMU build that e.g.:
a) supports virtio-rng-pci-transitional but not virtio-rng-pci-non-transitional
b) supports virtio-scsi-pci-transitional but not virtio-input-host-pci-transitional
For the disable-legacy property, we only have
QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_PCI_DISABLE_LEGACY, that is checked on multiple (but
not all possible) PCI devices.
That's a very good point! We could have a single capability
QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_PCI_NON_TRANSITIONAL
that is set if any out of a bunch of {,non-}transitional devices
is present, and key everything else off that...
Eduardo, do you think we might ever get in trouble if we did that?
For example, because of QEMU dropping transitional devices but
leaving non-transitional devices in?
I believe eduardo is offline for the next few weeks, so I'll make this
change in the next version to just track a single capability
QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_PCI_NON_TRANSITIONAL
We can always add the fine grained capabilities later if needed.
Thanks,
Cole
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
