On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:39:58AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/03/2013 11:31 PM, Hu Tao wrote: > > >> > >> pvpanic is a qemu term, but I could see the feasibility of other > >> hypervisors having a paravirt device with a sole purpose of notifying > >> the host about panics. Do we want to come up with a more generic name? > > > > Give it a generic name is easy, but what about attributes? different > > hypervisors may have different paravirt devices with different > > attributes, we can't just mix attributes of unrelated devices into one > > generic device. Make the devices concrete and accept/reject it if > > hypervisors recognize it or not is better. > > Then do what we've done in the past - separate the presence of a type of > device from the driver-specific attributes, something like: > > <devices> > <panic> > <driver type='qemu' ioport='0x505'/> > </panic> > ... > > where we use the type='' field of <driver> to toggle between a > discriminated union of any other per-hypervisor specific attributes. By > default, you don't need a <driver> subelement; requesting <panic/> is > sufficient to use the defaults for the current hypervisor. > > Dan, do you have any thoughts on the best representation to use? Or is > Hu's original proposal of: > > <pvpanic ioport='0x505'/> I'm not a fan of doing a special case attribute for 'ioport' - this is something something that should be part of an <address> element, since ioport numbers are a generic addressing concept for many devices. eg ISA serial / parallel ports have IRQ / IO ports IIUC. 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