From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57965) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6fMz-0000mk-Op for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 07:24:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6fMo-0006DK-7L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 07:24:05 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38220 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6fMo-0006DE-1l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 07:23:54 -0400 Message-ID: <5200DCC5.2040603@suse.de> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:23:49 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1970367422.9695773.1375718517492.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <20130805161833.GA4244@redhat.com> <51FFD6CE.5090302@redhat.com> <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> In-Reply-To: <20130806110035.GS8218@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Gerd Hoffmann , Paolo Bonzini 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 which >> case we should come up with some way to fully disable pvpanic device >> creation. CC'ing Corey. >> > IPMI was considered, to complicated for what was needed. Sorry? There's nothing wrong with going for pvpanic as a simple implementation. 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. My point was, there may be alternative, non-PV implementations to suck such information out of a guest, IPMI being one example of a management interface that exists for physical servers. So it's not necessarily black-or-white, but choices similar to virtio vs. IDE vs. AHCI vs. SCSI. HTE, Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg