On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 08:44:17AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
To be honest, I kinds dislike all of them. Not that they would be
chosen poorly, no, it's simply because the good sensible choice is
unavailable due to another poor decision in the past (this may be
another point for Michal's talk on KVM Forum). Thinking about it I
must say I don't like how target (which is supposed to match a place
where the device appears for the guest) is used for the model
specification, on the other hand (ab)using 'model' element for the
specification of an "address" in guest (that's what I understand
chassis and port are) doesn't feel any better. What if we go with two
of those elements? Would that be too much pain? E.g.:
<controller type='pci model='pci-root-port' index='3'>
<address type='pci' bus='0' slot='4'
function='1'>
<model type='ioh3420'/>
<target chassis='3' port='0x21'/>
</controller>
I understand this might look like an overkill, but I think it's better
safe then sorry, I guess I just see us not so far in the future
regretting any decision made now.
I'd be fine with this proposal too.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|