[libvirt] [PATCH 12/18] qemu: Support memballoon model=virtio-{non-}transitional
Andrea Bolognani
abologna at redhat.com
Mon Jan 21 15:18:52 UTC 2019
On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 12:52 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
[...]
> +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> @@ -7902,6 +7902,8 @@ qemu-kvm -net nic,model=? /dev/null
> </p>
> <ul>
> <li>'virtio' - default with QEMU/KVM</li>
> + <li>'virtio-transitional'</li>
> + <li>'virtio-non-transitional'</li>
> <li>'xen' - default with Xen</li>
> </ul>
You didn't add the "Since: 5.1.0" here.
[...]
> +++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
> @@ -4091,6 +4091,8 @@
> <value>virtio</value>
> <value>xen</value>
> <value>none</value>
> + <value>virtio-transitional</value>
> + <value>virtio-non-transitional</value>
> </choice>
I'd sort these new <value>s right after "virtio".
[...]
> @@ -550,7 +550,9 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainKeyWrapCipherName,
> VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainMemballoonModel, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMBALLOON_MODEL_LAST,
> "virtio",
> "xen",
> - "none")
> + "none",
> + "virtio-transitional",
> + "virtio-non-transitional")
Same comment as for other VIR_ENUM_IMPL() calls, and also I'd sort
the values as described above.
[...]
> @@ -1132,6 +1134,8 @@ struct virQEMUCapsStringFlags virQEMUCapsObjectTypes[] = {
> {"virtio-rng-pci-non-transitional", QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_VIRTIO_RNG_NON_TRANSITIONAL},
> {"virtio-9p-pci-transitional", QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_VIRTIO_9P_TRANSITIONAL},
> {"virtio-9p-pci-non-transitional", QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_VIRTIO_9P_NON_TRANSITIONAL},
> + {"virtio-balloon-pci-transitional", QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_VIRTIO_BALLOON_TRANSITIONAL},
> + {"virtio-balloon-pci-non-transitional", QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_VIRTIO_BALLOON_NON_TRANSITIONAL},
> };
Usual comment for capabilities.
[...]
> @@ -2284,8 +2287,7 @@ qemuDomainAssignDevicePCISlots(virDomainDefPtr def,
> }
>
> /* VirtIO balloon */
> - if (def->memballoon &&
> - def->memballoon->model == VIR_DOMAIN_MEMBALLOON_MODEL_VIRTIO &&
> + if (virDomainDefHasMemballoon(def) &&
> virDeviceInfoPCIAddressIsWanted(&def->memballoon->info)) {
See comments on the previous patch for why I don't think this is
correct; either way, it should have been part of *that* patch, no?
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list