On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 03:02:59AM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 09/27/2011 05:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:19:20AM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> >>On 09/19/2011 01:32 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 07:16:22PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> >>>>Hi hi
> >>>>
> >>>>On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Marc-André Lureau<mlureau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>How do we allow other devices to share the slot? It seems to me that
> >>>>>>>qemuDomainPCIAddressSetNextAddr() only allocate whole slot, while
> >>>>>>>making sure there is no conflicts on the same slot.
> >>>>>>So, if the user wants to use multi function pci device, he should
> >>>>>>specify the
> >>>>>>pci address.
> >>>>>So adding a check such as:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>if (!multiFunc&& info->addr.pci.function != 0)
> >>>>> return error("The %s device doesn't support multifunction address")
> >>>>>
> >>>>Wen, does that sound reasonable to you?
> >>>>
> >>>>Daniel, did you had time to verify that PCI allocation is per-slot?
> >>>>
> >>>>(It would be nice to get this "workaround" for the next release)
> >>>IMHO this kind of hack doesn't belong in libvirt. It is fine for distro
> >>>vendors to consider as a one off quick-hack for their packages of libvirt,
> >>>if they don't have time to fix the real QXL bug, but not for libvirt
> >>>upstream releases. QXL/QEMU should really be fixed since that's where the
> >>>problem appears to lie.
> >>As it stands, Fedora 16 (currently using unpatched libvirt-0.9.6)
> >>will be going into beta with QXL video broken for Windows guests, so
> >>we need some kind of Fedora-only patch very soon (see the schedule
> >>here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/16/Schedule -
> >>fortunately just delayed another week)
> >>
> >>The original patch in this thread:
> >>
> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-September/msg00534.html
> >>
> >>of course doesn't include the above mentioned additional code, and
> >>there isn't a followup patch. It would be very good to push a patch
> >>to the F16 git for this so it would hopefully get into the beta, but
> >>want to make sure what I push is the "right" thing, so a "final"
> >>patch (and some testing by people with F16 hosts) would be very
> >>helpful!
> >When we originally enabled multifunction for all PCI devices, we did so
> >in the belief that this was effectively a no-op for guest OSes. ie it
> >should not have changed guest OS behaviour at all, unless multiple devices
> >were actually inserted in the slot.
> >
> >Evidentally this turns out to be incorrect. In other words we introduced
> >a guest ABI change. This is very bad, because our stated goal is to have
> >a stable guest ABI across libvirt& QEMU releases.
> >
> >Thus IMHO we need to disable *all* setting of the 'multifunction=on'
> >parameter for all guests by default, to unbreak the ABI compatibility.
>
> Of course this has been in since 0.9.3, meaning there are official
> releases with broken ABI compatibility :-(. Still, the sooner it's
> fixed the better.
Fortunately it has only affected guests with a QXL device, to the best
of our knowledge.
> >Then we should introduce a new parameter 'multifunction='on' in the
> ><address type=pci> element to allow it to be optionally enabled per
> >device.
>
> Will it be acceptable to put that in a patch on top of 0.9.6 for
> Fedora 16? (I think the answer is "yes", since it's only an XML
> change, but just want to make sure).
Yep.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list