On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 16:58 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> ok, so that would mean we need to implement a QMP command to tell us
> which gic versions are supported for a given machine. Current
> possible responses are "2", "3" and "2,3"
>
> and we also need to add code to libvirt to try that QMP
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 07:05 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar enough with libvirt, nor the use of QMP, to really argue
>>> one way or another, but I find it a bit strange that we'd prefer libvirt
>>> to query two entities over one. A
On 02/02/2016 07:05 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>
>> I'm not familiar enough with libvirt, nor the use of QMP, to really argue
>> one way or another, but I find it a bit strange that we'd prefer libvirt
>> to query two entities over one. And, why should the libvirt installed on
>> a particular ho
On 2 February 2016 at 15:09, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> Hold on, so "gic-version=3" means "support all GIC versions up to 3",
> not "support GIC version 3 only"? I thought the latter.
In the current implemented syntax, it means "expose a version 3 GIC
to the guest". You can't simultaneously give t
Hello!
> Shouldn't the default be "host", to mean "whatever the host supports",
> rather than a specific version based either on host or QEMU probing?
No, because:
1) Older qemu, which does not support this option, uses v2.
2) It also depends on whether KVM or TCG is used. Currently we can have
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 13:59 +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > Our introspection support in QOM only allows us to say
that a property
> > > > is a particular type (int / enum / str / whatever). We don't have any
> > > > way to expose info
about what subset of possible values for a type are
> > > >
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:05:28PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:59:26PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:49:33PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2
On 2 February 2016 at 14:04, Andrew Jones wrote:
> I agree we should have a good argument to justify messing with it, but
> until we start versioning mach-virt, then I don't think anybody should
> depend on mach-virt command lines working everywhere. Every time we add
> a new property, and a user
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:59:26PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:49:33PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:44:32PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 06,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:15:49PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 February 2016 at 12:59, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > This actually doesn't matter for the v2 vs. v3 case. The gic-version
> > property
> > doesn't exist at all for v2-only QEMU. Although maybe the gic-version
> > property
> > shoul
On 2 February 2016 at 12:59, Andrew Jones wrote:
> This actually doesn't matter for the v2 vs. v3 case. The gic-version property
> doesn't exist at all for v2-only QEMU. Although maybe the gic-version property
> should be reworked. Instead of gic-version=, we could
> create
> one boolean property
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:49:33PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:44:32PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:30:16PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > On 6 January 2
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:49:33PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:44:32PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:30:16PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On 6 January 2016 at 12:49, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > > That's correct, having a QMP
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:44:32PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:30:16PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 6 January 2016 at 12:49, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > That's correct, having a QMP command that lists the values gic-version
> > > can have on the current ho
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:30:16PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 January 2016 at 12:49, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > That's correct, having a QMP command that lists the values gic-version
> > can have on the current host would be just great.
> >
> > If we had that, we could validate the GIC ve
On 01/19/16 17:53, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 19 January 2016 at 16:46, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 04:48:27PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>>> Would providing a QMP command that returns the list of GIC versions
>>> available on the current host for the current machine type be
On 19 January 2016 at 16:46, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 04:48:27PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>> Would providing a QMP command that returns the list of GIC versions
>> available on the current host for the current machine type be
>> acceptable from QEMU's point of view?
>>
>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 04:48:27PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> Would providing a QMP command that returns the list of GIC versions
> available on the current host for the current machine type be
> acceptable from QEMU's point of view?
>
Adding qemu-devel. Peter any opinion on this? If it soun
18 matches
Mail list logo
