From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60596) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V52Ni-0007L1-Vf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:34:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V52Nd-0001N7-0z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:34:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35944) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V4vvC-000217-26 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:40:14 -0400 Message-ID: <1375375184.4891.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: Marcel Apfelbaum Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:39:44 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20130801133214.GA15659@redhat.com> References: <1375362537.4891.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20130801133214.GA15659@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] pvpanic device should not be automatically included as an internal device List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Hu Tao , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 16:32 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:08:57PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The problem with pvpanic being an internal device is that VMs running > > operating systems without a driver for this device will have problems > > when qemu will be upgraded (from qemu without this pvpanic). > > > > The outcome may be, for example: in Windows(let's say XP) the Device manager > > will open a "new device" wizard and the device will appear as an unrecognized device. > > Now what will happen on a cluster with hundreds of such VMs? If that cluster has a health > > monitoring service it may show all the VMs in a "not healthy" state. > > > > My point is that a device that requires a driver that is not "inbox", should not > > be present by default. > > One possible solution is to add it manually with -device from command line. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Marcel > > Interesting. You are basically saying we should have a rule > that no new builtin devices should be added > without an explicit request from management interface? Basically, yes. The only builtin devices shall be devices that the operating systems know how to handle with the default drivers. Marcel > >