From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40699) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6g02-0004NA-IE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:04:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6fzw-0006nj-AR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:04:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61692) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6fzw-0006lq-33 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:04:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 15:05:52 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20130806120552.GA14396@redhat.com> References: <20130805182628.GC4244@redhat.com> <20130806072152.GK10891@redhat.com> <20130806083309.GA11051@redhat.com> <20130806083625.GF8218@redhat.com> <20130806092148.GC11051@redhat.com> <20130806093247.GL8218@redhat.com> <5200D15E.4030102@suse.de> <20130806110035.GS8218@redhat.com> <5200DCC5.2040603@suse.de> <20130806120005.GW8218@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130806120005.GW8218@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Gleb Natapov Cc: minyard@acm.org, Marcel Apfelbaum , seabios@seabios.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann , Paolo Bonzini , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 03:00:06PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:23:49PM +0200, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: > > Am 06.08.2013 13:00, schrieb Gleb Natapov: > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: > > >> I wonder if IPMI might be such an alternative in the future, in wh= ich > > >> case we should come up with some way to fully disable pvpanic devi= ce > > >> creation. CC'ing Corey. > > >> > > > IPMI was considered, to complicated for what was needed. > >=20 > > Sorry? There's nothing wrong with going for pvpanic as a simple > > implementation. > >=20 > Sure, why "sorry" then? :) PV has its benefits. PV always seems easier. It sometimes becomes a maintainance problem down the way though. > > There have been IPMI patchsets on qemu-devel though, and SUSE will be > > investigating adding some IPMI support too (not sure if identical to = the > > scope of those patchsets), whether IPMI is complicated or not. It's a > > standard present on physical servers, facilitating unified management= of > > virtual and physical servers, and there's OpenIPMI as implementation. > >=20 > Of course, there is nothing wrong with implementing IPMI either. Many > problems that IPMI solves are much simpler to solve in virtualized > environment with management software and pvpanic closes one gap > between what IPMI provides and virtual machine management can do. >=20 > > My point was, there may be alternative, non-PV implementations to suc= k > > such information out of a guest, IPMI being one example of a manageme= nt > > interface that exists for physical servers. So it's not necessarily > > black-or-white, but choices similar to virtio vs. IDE vs. AHCI vs. SC= SI. > >=20 > pvpanic not meant to replace IPMI though. But will you want pvpanic if you have IPMI? > -- > Gleb.