From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32822) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6bmd-0001wx-WB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 03:34:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6bmX-0008SP-RX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 03:34:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58786) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6bmX-0008RR-IZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 03:34:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:34:06 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov Message-ID: <20130806073406.GL10891@redhat.com> References: <1375688843-19573-1-git-send-email-hutao@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130805081055.GA356@redhat.com> <20130805081617.GB2258@redhat.com> <20130805091826.GA877@redhat.com> <20130805092044.GH2258@redhat.com> <20130805150333.GC877@redhat.com> <20130805160421.GB15901@redhat.com> <20130805183218.GD4244@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130805183218.GD4244@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS] [PATCH] don't expose pvpanic device in the UI List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum , Hu Tao , seabios@seabios.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann , Paolo Bonzini , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:32:18PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > As you see we do let people change many parameters > > > that do affect activation. > > By editing XML user can shoot himself in the foot, we should not prevent > > that. > > So that's what I'm saying basically. > At the moment there's no way to remove this device from XML. > That's just wrong. Can say the same about PV acpi hotpulg device. > In QEMU, we have a standard way to specify devices with -device. > That should be the interface for anything new really > unless there's a very compelling reason for something else. We are disagree on compelling reason in this case obviously. > *Not* building it into the PC machine type. > > > It should not be required though. > > libvirt can pass -device pvpanic by default if nothing > is specified in XML. That discussion really has to happen > on libvirt list. > As Paolo said you are just pushing the "problem" up the stack where it is harder to "solve". I put "problem" and "solve" in quotes because I disagree that the problem that need to be solved is identified correctly. The correct problem to be solved IMO is writing Windows driver for the device. -- Gleb.