> On Apr 29, 2020, at 9:02 PM, Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:44:48 -0400 > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 03:23:56PM +0000, Ani Sinha wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 22, 2020, at 4:15 PM, Ani Sinha <ani.si...@nutanix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Apr 21, 2020, at 8:32 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 02:45:04PM +0000, Ani Sinha wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 2020, at 8:32 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I for one would like to focus on keeping PIIX stable >>>>>>> and focus development on q35. Not bloating PIIX with lots of new >>>>>>> features is IMHO a good way to do that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this mean this patch is a no-go then? :( >>>>> >>>>> I'd support this patch, as I don't think it can really be described as >>>>> bloat or destabalizing. It is just adding a simple property to >>>>> conditionalize existing functionality. Telling people to switch to Q35 >>>>> is unreasonable as it is not a simple 1-1 conversion from existing use >>>>> of PIIX. Q35 has much higher complexity in its configuration, has higher >>>>> memory overhead per VM too, and lacks certain features of PIIX too. >>>> >>>> Cool. How do we go forward from here? >>>> >>> >>> We would really appreciate if we can add this extra knob in >>> Qemu. Maybe someone else also in the community will find this >>> useful. We don’t want to maintain this patch internally forever >>> but rather prefer we maintain this as a Qemu community. >> >> Michael, I agree with Daniel here and I don't think we should >> start refusing PIIX features if they are useful for a portion of >> the QEMU community. >> >> Would you reconsider and merge this patch? > > I put this patch on my review queue (hopefully next week I'd be able to get > to it)
Any progress?
