From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MGBkk-00079e-4i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:57:34 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MGBke-00073U-Ry for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:57:33 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37269 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MGBke-000732-JO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:57:28 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:51942) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MGBke-00077H-1e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:57:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4A3644BA.4090102@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:55:22 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Configuration vs. compat hints [was Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3 03/13] qemu: add routines to manage PCI capabilities] References: <20090610150129.GC28601@redhat.com> <200906101624.30659.paul@codesourcery.com> <20090610174301.GC7416@shareable.org> <20090610182227.GN28601@redhat.com> <20090610192702.GH7416@shareable.org> <1244796209.16425.20.camel@blaa> <4A326B5C.5010501@codemonkey.ws> <1244821292.30522.56.camel@blaa> <4A327E4A.7010300@codemonkey.ws> <1244825303.26769.19.camel@blaa> <20090614095016.GA7560@redhat.com> <1245056916.6891.31.camel@blaa> <4A3613EC.6030608@redhat.com> <4A36415F.6080206@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4A36415F.6080206@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Carsten Otte , Rusty Russell , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Mark McLoughlin , Glauber Costa , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Blue Swirl , Christian Borntraeger , Paul Brook On 06/15/2009 03:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> Yep, most people seem to agree that it makes sense to allow this, but >>> some believe it should only be via a machine description file, not the >>> command line. >> >> I don't understand this opposition. It's clear a machine config file >> is a long way in our future. It's also clear lack of stable PCI >> addresses hurts us now. > > > Is there opposition? I don't ever recall seeing a patch... Izik Eidus posted a patch (using a different syntax) in November 2007. > > I think it's a perfectly fine idea. Good. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function