From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46312) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCBxc-0005kn-PL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:12:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCBxX-0006wg-0l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:12:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25776) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCBxW-0006wL-Mz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:12:38 -0400 Message-ID: <5214F4CF.1080908@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:11:43 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1377103396-24307-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20130821164817.GC10012@redhat.com> <5214EFFF.3060804@redhat.com> <20130821165529.GE10012@redhat.com> <5214F154.4030101@redhat.com> <5214F47A.2080706@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5214F47A.2080706@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Start fixing the pvpanic mess List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: pkrempa@redhat.com, marcel.a@redhat.com, libvir-list@redhat.com, hutao@cn.fujitsu.com, mst@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, rhod@redhat.com, kraxel@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, lcapitulino@redhat.com, lersek@redhat.com, afaerber@suse.de -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Il 21/08/2013 19:10, Eric Blake ha scritto: > On 08/21/2013 10:56 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> eg it is valid to have present in the XML at all >>> times, even if there's no pvpanic device present. That simply >>> means the actions will never be triggered. >> >> So are you suggesting to add a element to ? >> That may be fine, but it doesn't seem very user-friendly. > > No less friendly than having a device, and certainly > automatable via libosinfo integration into virt-install. Fair enough. Still I'm not sure that a new element should be ruled out, see my other message. Paolo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSFPTPAAoJEBvWZb6bTYby4bkP/RKM2mycCtwhdZIZLJU2fWCf F7pcmD+uRqmBc5VtVh1K423ozo42lUcdb+erIzkIwH2sPVsiGNoue1IPRgHs1Azy Fq06uESPTVAroudFsFAYj8XtG6rH4UqfKFeym4RK97fMH87FLjRLX8bzm1R/mdw8 WWJ1TIspJ0tJceSewRVO2F12OjKC5AIIA36BTUH85dR2P64mJX/aZvhkQzTUn4ii Tp/+661RwyfRfgK2zY/gl6sh0qRp4i3Q3sdElKyPwDkFh6Z86XE6zTJTxJRMRfvl tqVg5elZeNHkgoBtAr4azGpn1j+mxuJ0dNmLJLC1/tyGCZojzL9C4Cc/gflJLGSP gW9VqBG7L8FRpwcCVdeoCMHFoZh2N39grAl7vkrqHf0zYR0oZidJ98MvCNwxZA4m YCf8gFMLx0vkEwa8BB4YexMzn5DCbQmSOuoJSd7XX3lYlb6mJudkQh+d+OXpYV8i bVDM9tZqUlejki9h9ZuS/sYIl0T4Aaa0QLYPMOvyl+zbLxfw0kmLI7VpFaUyxaWh Oz/fGL5A+lI2BT2SLCdphmeTj5dQ4R9a2nqMYAmiOZmFAYJvMRzDmuooJ65KPPvx xSsCbJhZoTp9JQz1nslWRcex7MCRth9BrL7wVu8hgb6RAw+lBkbpTeyQ7em5EjCb h7xMmCjeBr7wouhnAz3p =jYpU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----