From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Armbruster Subject: Re: Configuration vs. compat hints Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:04:32 +0200 Message-ID: <87bpop4pi7.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> References: <20090610150129.GC28601@redhat.com> <200906101624.30659.paul@codesourcery.com> <20090610174301.GC7416@shareable.org> <20090610182227.GN28601@redhat.com> <20090610192702.GH7416@shareable.org> <1244796209.16425.20.camel@blaa> <4A326B5C.5010501@codemonkey.ws> <1244821292.30522.56.camel@blaa> <4A327E4A.7010300@codemonkey.ws> <1244825303.26769.19.camel@blaa> <20090614095016.GA7560@redhat.com> <1245056916.6891.31.camel@blaa> <4A3613EC.6030608@redhat.com> <4A36415F.6080206@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Avi Kivity , Carsten Otte , Rusty Russell , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Mark McLoughlin , Glauber Costa , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Blue Swirl , Christian Borntraeger , Paul Brook To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:41515 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751474AbZFONGj (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:06:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A36415F.6080206@codemonkey.ws> (Anthony Liguori's message of "Mon\, 15 Jun 2009 07\:41\:03 -0500") Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anthony Liguori writes: > Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 06/15/2009 12:08 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >>>> This last option makes sense to me: in a real world the user has >>>> control over where he places the device on the bus, so why >>>> not with qemu? >>>> >>> >>> Yep, most people seem to agree that it makes sense to allow this, but >>> some believe it should only be via a machine description file, not the >>> command line. >>> >> >> I don't understand this opposition. It's clear a machine config >> file is a long way in our future. It's also clear lack of stable >> PCI addresses hurts us now. > > Is there opposition? I don't ever recall seeing a patch... http://www.archivum.info/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/2009-01/msg01458.html > I think it's a perfectly fine idea. Off to dust off my patch series. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MGBte-0008I9-0V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:06:46 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MGBtZ-00089P-9e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:06:45 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39999 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MGBtZ-00088y-1t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:06:41 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:55118) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MGBtY-00006Q-Ci for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:06:40 -0400 References: <20090610150129.GC28601@redhat.com> <200906101624.30659.paul@codesourcery.com> <20090610174301.GC7416@shareable.org> <20090610182227.GN28601@redhat.com> <20090610192702.GH7416@shareable.org> <1244796209.16425.20.camel@blaa> <4A326B5C.5010501@codemonkey.ws> <1244821292.30522.56.camel@blaa> <4A327E4A.7010300@codemonkey.ws> <1244825303.26769.19.camel@blaa> <20090614095016.GA7560@redhat.com> <1245056916.6891.31.camel@blaa> <4A3613EC.6030608@redhat.com> <4A36415F.6080206@codemonkey.ws> From: Markus Armbruster Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:04:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4A36415F.6080206@codemonkey.ws> (Anthony Liguori's message of "Mon\, 15 Jun 2009 07\:41\:03 -0500") Message-ID: <87bpop4pi7.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Configuration vs. compat hints List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Carsten Otte , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Mark McLoughlin , Glauber Costa , Rusty Russell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Blue Swirl , Christian Borntraeger , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Avi Kivity , Paul Brook Anthony Liguori writes: > Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 06/15/2009 12:08 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >>>> This last option makes sense to me: in a real world the user has >>>> control over where he places the device on the bus, so why >>>> not with qemu? >>>> >>> >>> Yep, most people seem to agree that it makes sense to allow this, but >>> some believe it should only be via a machine description file, not the >>> command line. >>> >> >> I don't understand this opposition. It's clear a machine config >> file is a long way in our future. It's also clear lack of stable >> PCI addresses hurts us now. > > Is there opposition? I don't ever recall seeing a patch... http://www.archivum.info/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/2009-01/msg01458.html > I think it's a perfectly fine idea. Off to dust off my patch series.