On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:35:29PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > On 04/15/2013 06:14 PM, Don Dutile wrote: > > On 04/15/2013 04:09 PM, Laine Stump wrote: > >> On 04/15/2013 06:29 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:46:15AM -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > >>>> On 04/11/2013 07:23 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 07:03:56AM -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > >>>>>> On 04/10/2013 05:26 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>>>>>>>> So if we later allowed for mutiple PCI roots, then we'd have > >>>>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> <controller type="pci-root" index="0"> > >>>>>>>>> <model name="i440FX"/> > >>>>>>>>> </controller> > >>>>>>>>> <controller type="pci-root" index="1"> > >>>>>>>>> <model name="i440FX"/> > >>>>>>>>> </controller> > >>>>>>>>> <controller type="pci" index="0"> <!-- Host bridge 1 --> > >>>>>>>>> <address type='pci' domain='0' bus='0' slot='0''/> > >>>>>>>>> </controller> > >>>>>>>>> <controller type="pci" index="0"> <!-- Host bridge 2 --> > >>>>>>>>> <address type='pci' domain='1' bus='0' slot='0''/> > >>>>>>>>> </controller> > >>>> > >>>> There is a problem here - within a given controller type, we will now > >>>> have the possibility of multiple controllers with the same index - the > >>>> differentiating attribute will be in the<address> subelement, which > >>>> could create some awkwardness. Maybe instead this should be handled > >>>> with > >>>> a different model of pci controller, and we can add a "domain" > >>>> attribute > >>>> at the toplevel rather than specifying an<address>? > >>> IIUC there is a limit on the number of PCI buses you can create per > >>> domain, due to fixed size of PCI addresses. Google suggests to me > >>> the limit is 256. So for domain 1, we could just start index at > >>> 256, and domain 2 at 512, etc > >> > >> Okay. Whether we choose that method, or a separate domain attribute, I'm > >> satisfied that we'll be able to find a way to solve it when the time > >> comes (and it hasn't yet), so we can ignore that problem for now. > >> > >> > > *PLEASE* don't create a new/competing naming/numbering scheme for > > differentiating > > PCI domains.... as much as I dislike the overuse of the term 'domain', > > it's what > > is used. No sane person is going to look to assign PCI bus numbers > > > 256 in order > > to get new/different domains. > > The name sucks, but that's what it's called in the code, and what > > customers are use to > > > I infer from this that you're okay with: > > <controller type='pci' domain='n' index='n'> > > when defining a new controller (using "index" instead of "bus" is a bit > bothersome, but it is following current convention; should we reconsider > and just call it "bus" this time?), and: 'index' is standard naming across all libvirt <controller> elements and we should do anything different for PCI. For the same reason I don't want us inventing a new 'domain' attribute here either. 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