[libvirt] [PATCH 00/13] PCIe fixes + new PCI controllers w/RFC

Daniel P. Berrange berrange at redhat.com
Thu Jun 25 08:59:43 UTC 2015


On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 08:44:17AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> To be honest, I kinds dislike all of them.  Not that they would be
> chosen poorly, no, it's simply because the good sensible choice is
> unavailable due to another poor decision in the past (this may be
> another point for Michal's talk on KVM Forum).  Thinking about it I
> must say I don't like how target (which is supposed to match a place
> where the device appears for the guest) is used for the model
> specification, on the other hand (ab)using 'model' element for the
> specification of an "address" in guest (that's what I understand
> chassis and port are) doesn't feel any better.  What if we go with two
> of those elements?  Would that be too much pain?  E.g.:
> 
>  <controller type='pci model='pci-root-port' index='3'>
>    <address type='pci' bus='0' slot='4' function='1'>
>    <model type='ioh3420'/>
>    <target chassis='3' port='0x21'/>
>  </controller>
> 
> I understand this might look like an overkill, but I think it's better
> safe then sorry, I guess I just see us not so far in the future
> regretting any decision made now.

I'd be fine with this proposal too.

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 :|




More information about the libvir-list mailing list