On 23/08/2018 13:31, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:43:42 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2018 12:25, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrow...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian
earlier
today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that
indicates
whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default
could be
true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains
as well
as satisfy the convention.
Would this additional attribute then control "add usage domains to the
list of control domains automatically", or "don't allow to add a usage
domain if it has not already been added as a control domain"?
One thing I'm still unsure about is how libvirt comes into the picture
here. Will it consume the setting, or actively manipulate it?
[In general, I'm not very clear about how libvirt will interact with the
whole infrastructure...]
When I read you it convince me that it is not wise to change anything
that has been already discuss and could impact the Libvirt.
My main point basically was that we should get feedback from a libvirt
POV :) The new attribute may make sense, or not; but I'm really feeling
a bit in the dark with regard to libvirt.
Me too, this explains my conservative approach ;)
--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
