On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 02:44:11PM +0100, David Scott wrote: > On 01/05/13 09:46, Ian Campbell wrote: > >I would suggest that libvirt+libxl expose the version as the "emulator" > >option and not the path. Just leave the path as the default in the > >normal case. You may also want to provide an extra > >emulator-path-override tag/attribute/XML for advanced users, but that's > >up to you. > > > >If you need to support upgrade from xend then you could perhaps treat > ><emulator> values not in the set of valid LIBXL_DEVICE_MODEL_VERSION > >string (currently "qemu-xen" and "qemu-xen-traditional") as a path to a > >qemu-xen-traditional device model -- no xend user can possibly have been > >using the new device model with xend. Or you could take the approach > >that xl does and just warn. > > This would work for me: it doesn't seem too bad to consider > "qemu-xen" and "qemu-xen-traditional" as special virtual paths. It's > a useful observation that xend never supported the new device model. > Jim: should I cook up patch v3? :-) No, that really doesn't fly. The <emlator> element must always point to a qualfied binary path. IMHO, libvirt should just default to the new QEMU binary and if people want to use the old one, they can configure the emulator path for it. 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