Re: [libvirt] [question]Why libvirt bind all devices with same vendor id and device id to vfio-pci driver, and only unbind devices used by VMs to original driver?

2017-10-11 Thread Laine Stump
On 10/09/2017 10:57 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:28:27 + > "Wuzongyong (Euler Dept)" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As the title says, I thought that it's a bit unreasonable and inconsistent >> to unbind devices assigned to VMs to original driver >> and

Re: [libvirt] [question]Why libvirt bind all devices with same vendor id and device id to vfio-pci driver, and only unbind devices used by VMs to original driver?

2017-10-09 Thread Alex Williamson
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:28:27 + "Wuzongyong (Euler Dept)" wrote: > Hi, > > As the title says, I thought that it's a bit unreasonable and inconsistent > to unbind devices assigned to VMs to original driver > and leave other devices binding to vfio-pci driver. > Why not

[libvirt] [question]Why libvirt bind all devices with same vendor id and device id to vfio-pci driver, and only unbind devices used by VMs to original driver?

2017-10-09 Thread Wuzongyong (Euler Dept)
Hi, As the title says, I thought that it's a bit unreasonable and inconsistent to unbind devices assigned to VMs to original driver and leave other devices binding to vfio-pci driver. Why not to bind devices we need to vfio-pci driver instead of bind all devices with same type to vfio-pci