From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37065) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsKJx-00060D-AX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:33:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsKJw-0003tn-4r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:33:25 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:55957) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsKJv-0003te-Ui for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:33:24 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:33:16 -0700 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFF53E40040 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:33:05 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r07LX5H0382624 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:33:05 -0700 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r07LWdA5029755 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:32:42 -0700 From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: <20130107204938.GB10575@redhat.com> References: <1354887155-32281-1-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> <20121217154508.GA28712@redhat.com> <20121218110153.GC22586@redhat.com> <50D053CC.9040203@greensocs.com> <20130107195843.GC8679@redhat.com> <20130107204938.GB10575@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:32:14 -0600 Message-ID: <8762381xy9.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v6 0/6] Virtio refactoring. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Peter Maydell Cc: e.voevodin@samsung.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, afaerber@suse.de, KONRAD =?utf-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYw==?= "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 08:02:32PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 7 January 2013 19:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric wr= ote: >> >> The modifications will be transparent to the user, as we will keep >> >> virtio-x-pci devices. >> > >> > Then what's the point of all this? >> > >> > -device virtio-pci,id=3Dtransport1 -device virtio-net,bus=3Dtransport1 >> > >> > or >> > >> > -device virtio-mmio,id=3Dtransport1 -device virtio-net,bus=3Dtransport1 >> > >> > Is simply an insane way to create a network device. >>=20 >> 1. You wouldn't create the virtio-mmio transport on the command line, >> the machine model does it (it has to because it's a sysbus device >> and it needs the address/irq lines wiring up properly), so it's just >> "-device virtio-net" (and let qemu find the bus automatically) > > Bus auto-detection sounds good and would be nice for pci too. > We had things like model=3Dvirtio originally which is pretty close. > But the issue is, how then do you pass bus specific arguments like pci > slot? This is what caused us to go the virtio-net-pci route > to begin with. PCI is not the same as MMIO here. virtio-mmio devices are not pluggable. It makes a lot more sense to have a virtio-net-pci device. But it doesn't make much sense to have a virtio-net-mmio device. > >> 2. We shouldn't be making command line simplicity drive how we >> model devices inside QEMU. > > Confused. I was told that enabling > -device virtio-pci,id=3Dtransport1 -device virtio-net,bus=3Dtransport1 > is the reason we have this patchset. You were misinformed. >> If we wanted to do that we should have >> stuck with the old -net command line arguments which are rather >> more userfriendly IMHO. > > The main thing that confused people with -net was the vlans > and the need to specify -net twice. > A good UI would have been e.g. -nic model=3Dvirtio,net=3Duser. That was the original UI. It was even called -nics. See 7c9d8e if you're curious. I was never a fan of the -net syntax. > But one bad UI does not justify another one. > >> If commandline confusion is getting to >> be a problem with all the -device foo stuff then we should probably >> fix that at the UI level. >>=20 >> -- PMM > > I'd like to see a proposal about how we are going to do this. (1) Stop conflating internal modeling with UI (2) Add UI interfaces as appropriate=20 It's really that simple. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > --=20 > MST