From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MGDpS-0008NK-N0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:10:34 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MGDpM-0008Ls-AS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:10:32 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59865 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MGDpL-0008Ld-0y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:10:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:60460) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MGDpK-0006JV-L6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:10:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:08:04 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: Configuration vs. compat hints [was Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3 03/13] qemu: add routines to manage PCI capabilities] Message-ID: <20090615150804.GH7233@redhat.com> References: <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> <20090615143737.GB14405@redhat.com> <4A3662BA.6030304@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A3662BA.6030304@codemonkey.ws> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Carsten Otte , dlaor@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Glauber Costa , Rusty Russell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Blue Swirl , Christian Borntraeger , Avi Kivity , Mark McLoughlin , Paul Brook On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:03:22AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>I'm not at all arguing against pci_addr. I'm arguing about how libvirt > >>should use it with respect to the "genesis" use-case where libvirt has > >>no specific reason to choose one PCI slot over another. In that case, > >>I'm merely advocating that we want to let QEMU make the decision. > >> > > > >The allocation code could be moved out into a library, and libvirt could > >link with it (ducks). > > > > Why does libvirt want to do allocation? It doesn't want to. As Mark said, libvirt just wants to be able to ensure a stable guest ABI, of which stable PCI addresses is one aspect. This does not imply libvirt wants to allocate the PCI addresses, just that it wants a way to keep them stable. All else being equal I'd rather libvirt wasn't in the PCI address allocation business. Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|