From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Configuration vs. compat hints [was Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3 03/13] qemu: add routines to manage PCI capabilities] Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:28:21 +0300 Message-ID: <4A378FE5.5050303@redhat.com> References: <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> <20090615103249.GB6351@redhat.com> <4A363012.8050409@redhat.com> <20090615114858.GG6351@redhat.com> <4A3636FA.1040609@redhat.com> <20090615124101.GH6351@redhat.com> <4A364381.401@redhat.com> <4A364401.6010500@codemonkey.ws> <4A3647FB.9010808@redhat.com> <4A364B53.9080007@codemonkey.ws> <4A364FE0.40204@redhat.com> <4A3651EB.3070204@codemonkey.ws> <4A36555A.4090303@redhat.com> <4A3659A0.3050108@codemonkey.ws> <4A366348.1030202@redhat.com> <1245083229.3222.103.camel@blaa> <4A368F12.2090504@codemonkey.ws> <1245154451.11407.22.camel@blaa> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Anthony Liguori , dlaor@redhat.com, Carsten Otte , Rusty Russell , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Glauber Costa , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Blue Swirl , Christian Borntraeger , Paul Brook To: Mark McLoughlin Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:55427 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758485AbZFPMaa (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:30:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1245154451.11407.22.camel@blaa> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/16/2009 03:14 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 13:12 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> >>> So long as the restrictions would be known to the management app via >>> some "what slots are available" mechanism in qemu, that sounds fine. >>> >>> >> I'm not sure a "what slots are available" mechanism is as straight >> forward as has been claimed. >> > > If qemu can't provide that information, then the management app does not > have sufficient information to do the slot allocation itself. In which > case, it must leave it up to qemu to do it. > A given -M machine will have well-known open slots (since it's an ABI), same as it has rtl8139 and ne2000 cards. Worst case we hardcode those numbers (gasp, faint). >> It doesn't matter though because it's orthogonal to the current proposal. >> > > It is not orthogonal to solving the actual problem at hand, though - > i.e. how to allow management apps to provide stable PCI addresses. > It's part of the solution, but hardly a difficult the most difficult part. > This is a fine solution to the "stable guest ABI" problem ... assuming > there's some way of querying the current default machine type. > $ qemu -print-default-machine or maybe $ qemu -show default-machine $ qemu -show pci-bus $ qemu -show me a way out -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function