From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43064) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZeCK-0006I5-BN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 08:09:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZeCG-0000U7-AD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 08:09:56 -0400 References: <1441761736-32030-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <55EFD0DE.1050001@redhat.com> <20150909071934.GD17641@voom.redhat.com> <55EFDFCE.2040609@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <55F02189.2080003@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:09:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55EFDFCE.2040609@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] spapr: Reduce advertised max LUNs for spapr_vscsi List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth , David Gibson Cc: lvivier@redhat.com, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 09/09/2015 09:29, Thomas Huth wrote: >> Doesn't help for existing guests. Basically what I'm trying to >> achieve is for qemu to reject up-front configurations that are >> unlikely to actually work in the guest. > > I just wonder whether it makes sense to change the guest instead. I agree; perhaps it's a one-liner. The patch is simple, but I wonder if it is really a case of "if it hurts, don't do it". Paolo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV8CGFAAoJEL/70l94x66DhAYH/jlUe5xCT6YS5uiYQukrPrVC rjJAzqLUUdKh62GHR62wKkylVds9YtFYlkLGLbaXUDO0uVlgvyr4BrPZ8xeKcfPg 3yMtoFIZr3rLdsY1Bbjk/ReyY5uU9fRvU8WHCSXeCsWqMUmFpMm7HdnbCdh+3mCW bNUUuBorxCQMI+2ra8FNLCc/wMmw4M4M0uUtcGYOwxUkfcjPbQyqWFOtbj3Q2Mo9 CrGjW8u48ZFgiPMtHPI+hetZQBrMltoqokCl0Ca2DuWRK8pmSERDS7NqlNfzWDiL /dyKkznPuWB4jox/NyeMpXmPMSgrwcSg3YvBv8My3EOiIcPp8b+nGCTLCkmbjzw= =3vF9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----