From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MG9Wz-0001cW-Vy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:35:14 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MG9Wu-0001aS-R2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:35:13 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55276 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MG9Wu-0001aM-Al for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:35:08 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:51694) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MG9Wt-0003cw-Hb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:35:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:32:49 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: Configuration vs. compat hints [was Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3 03/13] qemu: add routines to manage PCI capabilities] Message-ID: <20090615103249.GB6351@redhat.com> References: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A3613EC.6030608@redhat.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Mark McLoughlin , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Carsten Otte , Glauber Costa , Rusty Russell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Blue Swirl , Christian Borntraeger , Paul Brook On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:27:08PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/15/2009 12:08 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >>> This last option makes sense to me: in a real world the user has >>> control over where he places the device on the bus, so why >>> not with qemu? >>> >> >> 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. > >> However, the first problem is that it isn't a solution to the guest ABI >> problem more generally. >> > > pci_addr was never meant to bring world peace, just stable PCI > addresses. The other issues should be addressed separately. > >> And the second problem is that for e.g. libvirt to use it, it would have >> to be possible to query qemu for what PCI slots were assigned to the >> devices - libvirt would need to be able to parse 'info pci' and match >> the devices listed with the devices specified on the command line. >> > > If all devices (including vga, ide) are set up with pci_addr, then this > is unneeded. Right. I think it could be an all or nothing at all approach. > You do need to export available slot numbers from qemu. Why would a slot be unavailable?