On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 18:12 +0300, Dor Laor wrote: > > It doesn't want to. As Mark said, libvirt just wants to be able to ensure > > a stable guest ABI, of which stable PCI addresses is one aspect. This does > > not imply libvirt wants to allocate the PCI addresses, just that it wants > > a way to keep them stable. All else being equal I'd rather libvirt wasn't > > in the PCI address allocation business. > > > > It's not about what libvirt wants. It's about what will serve the end > user the most.
Absolutely. And not just about what most helps end users of libvirt based management apps, but also any app managing qemu. > Apart for stable guest ABI, end users need to have the option to > control the slot for their devices. Just like them have for physical > machines. It's not theoretical discussion, limiting issues with shared > irq is one real life example. Providing end users with the *option* to choose PCI slots sounds like a fine feature request for any management app. Requiring all management apps to force end users to explicitly choose PCI slots in order for slots to be stable is not so reasonable. Cheers, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
