From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Ján Tomko" <jtomko@redhat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Michael Roth" <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"Alexander Graf" <agraf@suse.de>,
"Anthony Liguori" <aliguori@amazon.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we have a 2.0-rc3 ?
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:37:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140411083748.GA30229@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k3awqopq.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:01:37AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On 04/10/2014 07:45 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this something that can be quickly fixed (perhaps by reverting the
> >>>>> PPC patch until a more complete solution is ready), and if so, is it
> >>>>> worth doing for 2.0 proper, rather than waiting for 2.0.1?
> >>>> Which way works better for you? I'd be perfectly fine with reverting
> >>>> the patch. Libvirt is the only reason that path is there in the first
> >>>> place.
> >>>>
> >>> If I read the git history correctly, there were two patches changing
> >>> pci bus
> >>> names for ppc in this release, not just one:
> >>
> >> The main difference is that the g3beige and mac99 targets are not
> >> supported by libvirt FWIW :).
> >>
> >> But I agree that this is messy. And a pretty intrusive change pretty
> >> late in the game. Eric, how hard would a special case for this be in
> >> libvirt code? Are we talking about a 2 line patch?
> >
> > Here's the current libvirt patch proposal:
> >
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-April/msg00444.html
> >
> > a bit more than a 2-line patch:
> >
> > src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > We already have to special case on machine type for all qemu older than
> > the point where we introduce sane names; but it would be nicer if that
> > were the ONLY special casing (rather than having the _additional_
> > special casing that for 2.0, ppc, but not other machines, behave
> > differently). The IDEAL situation is to have a QMP command that can
> > query which naming convention is in use for a given machine; even if
> > such command is not introduced until 2.1, the logic will look something
> > like:
> >
> > if (probe exists)
> > use results of probe to set QEMU_CAPS_PCI_MULTIBUS
> > else if (machine with sane handling)
> > assume QEMU_CAPS_PCI_MULTIBUS
> > else
> > assume no QEMU_CAPS_PCI_MULTIBUS
> >
> > and is completely independent of version checks, which means it is
> > portable even to downstream backports where the version number is not as
> > large as upstream, without any modification when backporting this hunk.
> >
> > Without a QMP command to probe it, but with all machines switched to
> > sane naming in the same version of qemu, the logic looks more like:
> >
> > if (x86 or 686)
> > assume QEMU_CAPS_PCI_MULTIBUS
> > else if (version check) // evil for downstream backports
> > set QEMU_CAPS_PCI_MULTIBUS if new enough
> >
> > which looks shorter, but plays havoc with downstream ports, which now
> > have to patch the version check to play nicely with downstream.
>
> I understand why libvirt needs to know how PCI buses a named. I'm not
> sure a "multibus?" flag can cover more than the present problem, though.
>
> Doesn't libvirt need to know how *any* kind of bus is named?
Yes, you are right - in theory libvirt needs to know the name of any
default bus which is pre-created due to the machine type. For ones
we create ourselvs, obviously we already have ability to choose the
name.
Now in practice, I believe the default PCI bus is the only one that
actually causes us trouble today. USB buses are all fully created by
libvirt self. The default SCSI/IDE/etc disk buses are not a problem
since we just refer to them by bus number. While there are other buses
on non-x86 our support for those in libvirt pretty much doesn't exist
so we don't currently hit that.
> Would it suffice if libvirt could introspect the names of all available
> buses? And perhaps control the names of all buses it creates itself?
'info qtree' provides a way to introspect that, but of course we
probe capabilities using '-M none' so we case use that, and we
don't particularly want to have to invoke QEMU many more times to
probe the machine types.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-11 8:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-10 11:17 [Qemu-devel] Should we have a 2.0-rc3 ? Peter Maydell
2014-04-10 11:24 ` Alexander Graf
2014-04-10 15:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-04-10 11:49 ` Kevin Wolf
2014-04-10 12:44 ` Eric Blake
2014-04-10 12:46 ` Alexander Graf
2014-04-10 12:51 ` Eric Blake
2014-04-10 12:56 ` Alexander Graf
2014-04-10 13:41 ` Ján Tomko
2014-04-10 13:45 ` Alexander Graf
2014-04-10 15:02 ` Eric Blake
2014-04-10 15:27 ` Alexander Graf
2014-04-10 15:38 ` Eric Blake
2014-04-10 15:42 ` Alexander Graf
2014-04-11 8:01 ` Markus Armbruster
2014-04-11 8:37 ` Daniel P. Berrange [this message]
2014-04-10 15:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-04-10 18:55 ` Cole Robinson
2014-04-10 21:30 ` Peter Maydell
2014-04-11 17:37 ` Peter Maydell
2014-04-11 22:55 ` Alexander Graf
2014-04-12 1:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-04-12 8:48 ` Michael Tokarev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140411083748.GA30229@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=afaerber@suse.de \
--cc=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=aliguori@amazon.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=jtomko@redhat.com \
--cc=mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).