On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 17:38 +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > <value>virtio-scsi</value>
> > <value>lsisas1078</value>
> > + <value>virtio-transitional</value>
> > + <value>virtio-non-transitional</value>
>
> As mentioned during the previous round of reviews, I think we should
> support model='virtio' (which would behave the same as the existing
> model='virtio-scsi') in order to have a nice, consistent experience
> for users and management application developers.
If we add model='virtio' we should always translate it back to
'virtio-scsi'. It's not a new model or new feature, it's just a
different name for existing model and we should not break management
applications that are already using 'virtio-scsi'. It would be
basically only alias.
Definitely.
The question is whether it's useful, if
management application starts using 'virtio' when creating new guest it
would still had to be able to parse 'virtio-scsi' and my guess is that
it would not help at all.
I agree that the value proposition is not that impressive once
you've established the above.
That said, implementing it is only going to take a couple of lines
of code and it will allow applications that can afford to require
very recent libvirt to only special-case SCSI controllers when
parsing the configuration, instead of both when parsing and when
formatting.
I guess I just don't see a reason *not* to implement it. But if
Cole doesn't want to go through with it that's fine, I can just
post patches later myself :)
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization