From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 28/35] kvm: x86: Introduce kvmclock device
 to save/restore its state
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:33:41 +0000
Message-ID: <20110120103341.GA8675@redhat.com>
References: <4D35BD30.1060900@siemens.com>
 <4D35C1CE.10509@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4D35C648.7050809@siemens.com>
 <4D35C92D.7030000@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4D36B362.70202@redhat.com>
 <m37he1nimc.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
 <4D371732.5040901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110119171918.GI5113@redhat.com>
 <4D3722BB.5030407@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4D37F5D5.3040409@redhat.com>
Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46956 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755373Ab1ATKdu (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:33:50 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D37F5D5.3040409@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:44:05AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
> >For (2), you cannot use bus=X,addr=Y because it makes assumptions about
> >the PCI topology which may change in newer -M pc's.
> 
> Why should the PCI topology for 'pc' ever change?
> 
> We'll probably get q35 support some day, but when this lands I
> expect we'll see a new machine type 'q35', so '-m q35' will pick the
> ich9 chipset (which will have a different pci topology of course)
> and '-m pc' will pick the existing piix chipset (which will continue
> to look like it looks today).

If the topology does ever change (eg in the kind of way anthony
suggests, first bus only has the graphics card), I think libvirt
is going to need a little work to adapt to the new topology,
regardless of whether we currently specify a bus= arg to -device
or not. I'm not sure there's anything we could do to future proof
us to that kind of change.

Regards,
Daniel