From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44663) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6gCx-000536-M0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:17:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6gCr-0003ub-JN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:17:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37957) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6gCr-0003uN-9L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:17:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 15:17:37 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov Message-ID: <20130806121737.GZ8218@redhat.com> References: <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> <20130806120552.GA14396@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20130806120552.GA14396@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: minyard@acm.org, Marcel Apfelbaum , seabios@seabios.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann , Paolo Bonzini , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 03:05:52PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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=C3=A4rber wrote: > > > Am 06.08.2013 13:00, schrieb Gleb Natapov: > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andreas F=C3=A4rber 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. >=20 > PV always seems easier. It sometimes becomes a maintainance problem > down the way though. >=20 If it is modelled as proper device, why? What PV devices we have that are p= ain? > > > 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 suck > > > 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. >=20 > But will you want pvpanic if you have IPMI? >=20 Why not? They report to different components. -- Gleb.