From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44863) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TMccY-0003CI-AW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:37:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TMccX-0003UZ-0q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:37:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61141) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TMccW-0003UV-Ox for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:37:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:39:15 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20121012103915.GA32653@redhat.com> References: <20121011105705.GE5552@redhat.com> <20121011142122.GH3592@redhat.com> <20121011144656.GF8983@redhat.com> <20121011153408.GI3592@redhat.com> <5077C646.3070007@redhat.com> <20121012093937.GB32014@redhat.com> <5077EBB4.80304@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5077EBB4.80304@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 21/21] q35: add acpi-based pci hotplug. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, juzhang@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, Jason Baron , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de, blauwirbel@gmail.com, yamahata@valinux.co.jp, alex.williamson@redhat.com, kevin@koconnor.net, avi@redhat.com, mkletzan@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com, afaerber@suse.de, armbru@redhat.com On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:06:44PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > >>> I just tried out getting rid of the bridges by default. > >> > >> That clearly raises the question which devices should be created > >> automatically by -M q35. I think the devices which are part of the ich9 > >> chipset should be there by default. /me looks at my laptop which > >> happens to have a ich9 chipset. > > > > The reason this is a bad idea is very simple: we only have a way to add > > devices not to remove them. So if you miss a device which your guest > > needs, it is easy to add, but there is no way to remove. > > Why would you want remove devices? They don't harm when present. Yes they do, they increase attack surface on hypervisor. -- MST