On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:48:52 -0200
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
Is there any hope to get this into QEMU 2.0, or it is now too late? I got
almost no feedback on take 6 (submitted November 27).
This is the main blocker to allow libvirt finally implement an equivalent to
the
Il 31/01/2014 15:48, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
that's abusing of object-add interface and due to recent changes, object-add
won't accept arbitrary objects.
I hope that sooner or later device hotplug will be doable with
object-add too. But yes, in the meanwhile device_add could work, and
Il 31/01/2014 16:10, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
I don't mind which command is used, as long as we have the same effect.
I used object-add in my example because device_add rejects the CPU
classes by now (because they have cannot_instantiate_with_device_add_yet=true).
But now I have one
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:50:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 31/01/2014 15:48, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
that's abusing of object-add interface and due to recent changes, object-add
won't accept arbitrary objects.
I hope that sooner or later device hotplug will be doable with
(CCing Luiz, in case he can give some advice about the expectations of
QMP semantics stability)
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:48:53PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:48:52 -0200
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
Is there any hope to get this into QEMU 2.0, or it is
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:17:53 -0200
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:50:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 31/01/2014 15:48, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
that's abusing of object-add interface and due to recent changes,
object-add
won't accept arbitrary
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:17:53 -0200
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:50:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 31/01/2014 15:48, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
that's abusing of object-add
Il 31/01/2014 17:42, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
It looks like only -device would be able to create actual CPU models,
but for -device to work we need as minimum this series and conversion
of CPU features to properties in tree. Then I guess we can override
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:52:57PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 31/01/2014 17:42, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
It looks like only -device would be able to create actual CPU models,
but for -device to work we need as minimum this series and conversion
of CPU features to properties in tree.
On 01/31/2014 11:51 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Allowing -device may be okay, since in the (very?) long term -device
can be replaced by -object. But -object is definitive.
OK, one additional reason to try device_add first.
But then we have one additional problem:
* We want to allow
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:56:18AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/31/2014 11:51 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Allowing -device may be okay, since in the (very?) long term -device
can be replaced by -object. But -object is definitive.
OK, one additional reason to try device_add first.
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:56:18 -0700
Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/31/2014 11:51 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Allowing -device may be okay, since in the (very?) long term -device
can be replaced by -object. But -object is definitive.
OK, one additional reason to try
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 08:18:39PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:56:18 -0700
Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/31/2014 11:51 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Allowing -device may be okay, since in the (very?) long term -device
can be replaced by -object. But
13 matches
Mail list logo
