----- Original Message ----- From: "Gleb Natapov" <[email protected]> To: "Vadim Rozenfeld" <[email protected]> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]>, "Daniel P. Berrange" <[email protected]>, "Marcel Apfelbaum" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], "Gerd Hoffmann" <[email protected]>, "Paolo Bonzini" <[email protected]>, "Eric Blake" <[email protected]>, "Andreas Färber" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 6:05:27 PM Subject: Re: [SeaBIOS] [PATCH] don't expose pvpanic device in the UI
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 04:03:17AM -0400, Vadim Rozenfeld wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gleb Natapov" <[email protected]> > To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" <[email protected]>, "Marcel Apfelbaum" > <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], "Gerd > Hoffmann" <[email protected]>, "Paolo Bonzini" <[email protected]>, "Eric > Blake" <[email protected]>, "Andreas Färber" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 5:34:06 PM > Subject: Re: [SeaBIOS] [PATCH] don't expose pvpanic device in the UI > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:32:18PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > As you see we do let people change many parameters > > > > that do affect activation. > > > By editing XML user can shoot himself in the foot, we should not prevent > > > that. > > > > So that's what I'm saying basically. > > At the moment there's no way to remove this device from XML. > > That's just wrong. > Can say the same about PV acpi hotpulg device. > > > In QEMU, we have a standard way to specify devices with -device. > > That should be the interface for anything new really > > unless there's a very compelling reason for something else. > We are disagree on compelling reason in this case obviously. > > > *Not* building it into the PC machine type. > > > > > It should not be required though. > > > > libvirt can pass -device pvpanic by default if nothing > > is specified in XML. That discussion really has to happen > > on libvirt list. > > > As Paolo said you are just pushing the "problem" up the stack > where it is harder to "solve". I put "problem" and "solve" in > quotes because I disagree that the problem that need to be solved > is identified correctly. The correct problem to be solved IMO is > writing Windows driver for the device. > > [VR] > This one shouldn't be too complicated. Can be done on weekend. Gal says he did it already. [VR] If so, we can add it to our build and make it public. -- Gleb.
