On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:43:42 +0200 Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23/08/2018 12:25, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400 > > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian > >> earlier > >> today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that > >> indicates > >> whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default > >> could be > >> true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains > >> as well > >> as satisfy the convention. > > > > Would this additional attribute then control "add usage domains to the > > list of control domains automatically", or "don't allow to add a usage > > domain if it has not already been added as a control domain"? > > > > One thing I'm still unsure about is how libvirt comes into the picture > > here. Will it consume the setting, or actively manipulate it? > > > > [In general, I'm not very clear about how libvirt will interact with the > > whole infrastructure...] > > > > When I read you it convince me that it is not wise to change anything > that has been already discuss and could impact the Libvirt. My main point basically was that we should get feedback from a libvirt POV :) The new attribute may make sense, or not; but I'm really feeling a bit in the dark with regard to libvirt.
