On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:30:12AM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 13:48:24 +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > > Added: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 01:45:35PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > > > On 04/12/2013 05:50 AM, Guannan Ren wrote: > > > > On 04/11/2013 01:45 PM, Hu Tao wrote: > > > >> From: Ken ICHIKAWA <ichikawa.ken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> > > > >> We couldn't use host-passthrough mode for virtual cpu from > > > >> virt-manager so far. This patch enables virt-manager to > > > >> configure host-passthrough mode. > ... > > > So here I'm not sure we even want host-passthrough in the virt-manager UI. I > > > know it's valuable and useful, but there's the problem that libvirt 'taints' > > > the VM when you set this flag. This doesn't really have any functional effect, > > > but it basically means that libvirt devs consider this option to be not all > > > that supportable. > > > > Yes. But what if user knows the risk and just want the option? We can > > explicitly state that this option may not be well supported. > > Yeah, the reason for tainting the domain is that the environment is > generally unreproducible on another host and thus it complicates > investigation if something breaks. By tainting such domain, libvirt > basically says the user is on their own and if it doesn't work and the > failure cannot be reproduced without -cpu host, we may refuse to deal > with it (depending on the nature of that failure of course). > > > > Exposing it in the UI seems like going against libvirt's wishes. > > > > libvirt supports it in xml, so I don't think this is a problem. > > From libvirt's POV I don't see a reason for virt-manager not to allow > this configuration if it explicitly states that doing so is fragile, the > domain may crash and burn after migration, etc. So it really depends if > that is something which fits into virt-manager's goals or not. > > > > It's also quite hard to explain host-model vs host-passthrough to an end user. > > > We could just throw them in a combo box, but I guarantee it will have people > > > asking over and over what the difference between host-model and > > > host-passthrough is. > > Which might actually be the real reason for not allowing > host-passthrough to be set using virt-manager. I don't think this is a strong reason to against host-passthrough in virt-manager. What's your opinion, Cole? _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
