On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:03:22AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>I'm not at all arguing against pci_addr. I'm arguing about how libvirt > >>should use it with respect to the "genesis" use-case where libvirt has > >>no specific reason to choose one PCI slot over another. In that case, > >>I'm merely advocating that we want to let QEMU make the decision. > >> > > > >The allocation code could be moved out into a library, and libvirt could > >link with it (ducks). > > > > Why does libvirt want to do allocation? It doesn't want to. As Mark said, libvirt just wants to be able to ensure a stable guest ABI, of which stable PCI addresses is one aspect. This does not imply libvirt wants to allocate the PCI addresses, just that it wants a way to keep them stable. All else being equal I'd rather libvirt wasn't in the PCI address allocation business. Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
