On 01/23/2012 05:12 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
In view of the discussion on SCSI passthrough, it seems to me that this should be attached to an <interface> element:
<devices> <interface type='hostdev'> <source> <address type='pci' bus='0x06' slot='0x02' function='0x0'/> </source> <mac address='00:16:3e:5d:c7:9e'/> <address type='pci' .../> </interface> </devices>
Nice! I should have thought of this in my original proposal - it's the logical extension of having networks of type='hostdev'. I would prefer this as well, but it hits one of Dan's criticism's of the original proposal (from https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-August/msg01033.html ), so I didn't further consider using a change to <interface>:
I didn't have time now to read the whole original discussion, however...
On 08/22/2011 at 05:17 AM, Dan Berrange wrote:
The issue I see is that if an application wants to know what PCI devices have been assigned to a guest, they can no longer just look at<hostdev> elements. They also need to look at <interface> elements. If we follow this proposed model in other areas, we could end up with PCI devices appearing as<disks> <controllers> and who knows what else.
... this is exactly what we're doing for <controller>. In that case, the <source> syntax is roughly the same that you use in a SCSI pool. See here for how it arose: http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-October/msg01298.html
Since originally proposing the <hostdev> examples for network cards, I've switched to the opinion that this was in fact the wrong thing todo at all. The network devices should be in the <interface> element, so we have access to all the properties that this element allows for.
My general view is that <hostdev> should be kept for "opaque" device assignment where we're not caring about what capabilities the device has. Just "blind" assignment of the PCI/USB/ISA hardware device based on their hardware addresses.
(That's Dan speaking, not me :)). Paolo