From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Configuration vs. compat hints [was Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3
 03/13] qemu: add routines to manage PCI capabilities]
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:55:22 +0300
Message-ID: <4A3644BA.4090102@redhat.com>
References: <20090610150129.GC28601@redhat.com>	 <200906101624.30659.paul@codesourcery.com>	 <20090610174301.GC7416@shareable.org> <20090610182227.GN28601@redhat.com>	 <20090610192702.GH7416@shareable.org> <1244796209.16425.20.camel@blaa>	 <4A326B5C.5010501@codemonkey.ws> <1244821292.30522.56.camel@blaa>	 <4A327E4A.7010300@codemonkey.ws> <1244825303.26769.19.camel@blaa>	 <20090614095016.GA7560@redhat.com> <1245056916.6891.31.camel@blaa> <4A3613EC.6030608@redhat.com> <4A36415F.6080206@codemonkey.ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:35250 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753614AbZFOM5a (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:57:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4A36415F.6080206@codemonkey.ws>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 06/15/2009 03:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> Yep, most people seem to agree that it makes sense to allow this, but
>>> some believe it should only be via a machine description file, not the
>>> command line.
>>
>> I don't understand this opposition.  It's clear a machine config file 
>> is a long way in our future.  It's also clear lack of stable PCI 
>> addresses hurts us now.
>
>
> Is there opposition?  I don't ever recall seeing a patch...

Izik Eidus posted a patch (using a different syntax) in November 2007.

>
> I think it's a perfectly fine idea.

Good.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function