Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains | From | Pierre Morel <> | Date | Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:44:40 +0200 |
| |
On 23/08/2018 13:31, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:43:42 +0200 > Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 23/08/2018 12:25, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400 >>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>>> One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian >>>> earlier >>>> today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that >>>> indicates >>>> whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default >>>> could be >>>> true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains >>>> as well >>>> as satisfy the convention. >>> >>> Would this additional attribute then control "add usage domains to the >>> list of control domains automatically", or "don't allow to add a usage >>> domain if it has not already been added as a control domain"? >>> >>> One thing I'm still unsure about is how libvirt comes into the picture >>> here. Will it consume the setting, or actively manipulate it? >>> >>> [In general, I'm not very clear about how libvirt will interact with the >>> whole infrastructure...] >>> >> >> When I read you it convince me that it is not wise to change anything >> that has been already discuss and could impact the Libvirt. > > My main point basically was that we should get feedback from a libvirt > POV :) The new attribute may make sense, or not; but I'm really feeling > a bit in the dark with regard to libvirt. >
Me too, this explains my conservative approach ;)
-- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
| |