On 07/13/17 02:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 02:30:06AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 07/12/17 10:22, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> We don't want to carry along old machine types forever. If we are able to >>> remove the pc machines up to 0.13 one day for example, this would allow >>> us to eventually kill the code for rombar=0 (i.e. where QEMU copies ROM >>> BARs directly to low memory). Everything up to pc-1.2 is also known to >>> have issues with migration. So let's start with a deprecation message >>> for the old machine types so that the (hopefully) few users of these old >>> systems start switching over to newer machine types instead. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> Note: Even if we mark all these old machines as deprecated, this ofcourse >>> doesn't mean that we also have to remove them all at once later when we >>> decide to finally really remove some. We could then also start by removing >>> 0.10 and 0.11 only, for example (since there should really be no users left >>> for these), or only up to 0.13 (to be able to kill rombar=0). >> >> On a tangent: "rombar=0" shouldn't be killed before the libvirt domain >> XML regains the ability to say, "don't load any oprom for this device". >> Please see <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1425058>. >> >> (Please note that it is not lost on me that rombar=0 is a poor >> substitute for romfile='', but currently rombar=0 is the only fallback >> through libvirt. See the BZ pls.) >> >> Thanks >> Laszlo > > rombar=0 would start meaning "no ROM", not "no BAR but still add a > rom". >
Ah! In that case, it would actually obviate RHBZ#1425058. Thanks, Laszlo
