[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