Re: [PATCH] Support x-vga=on for PCI host passthrough devices
On 10/8/20 4:54 AM, Steven Newbury wrote:
On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 21:45 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
>
>
> It is *definitely* less hacky to use <qemu:commandline> than to carry
> your own local patch on top of the libvirt source, which would force
> you to always build your own libvirt binaries, and rebase your patch
> every time upstream libvirt changed code that touched the same place.
> Although <qemu:commandline> isn't "Supported" (Capital
"S" - in the
> sense that a vendor providing paid technical support for a system
> using libvirt won't officially commit themselves to solving any
> problem you may have associated with use of <qemu:commandline>, and
> the options you provide there *could* disappear from qemu), it is
> "supported" (small "s" - in the sense that libvirt has no plans
to
> remove <qemu:commandline>, and it is used by other people so if it
> becomes broken it will surely get fixed).
>
>
>
> Using <qemu:commandline> will take 10 minutes of your time right now,
> and then you'll never have to think about it ever again (until/unless
> QEMU removes the x-vga option). Using your own custom build of
> libvirt that carries a locally written patch will continue to be a
> burden every time you upgrade libvirt until the end of time.
>
Thanks for the detailed instructions, I had missed the alias part
before, I don't know if that was where I was going wrong?
Nah, that would just lead to an error when you started the guest.
The
<qemu::commandline> part would just disappear when I hit apply.
The most likely reason for that would be a) if you left out step (1), or
b) if you put <qemu:commandline> after </domain>, or maybe put it inside
some other element (e.g. <devices>).
The original patch only took me 10mins at most, yeah it shows, but
worked straight away. I've been running Gentoo unstable for the last
20 years, patch rebasing isn't really a problem! :-) I'm very used to
creating patches for new features and bug fixes as I need to, it's part
of my usual update process. I must have written thousands over the
years. I've been trying to make a bit of effort to get some pushed
upstream, rather than having them sit in an overlay or
"portage/patches".
It is taking some time and effort to get the validation working, but I
don't think it's a waste of time. I'm getting better familarised with
the code which isn't a bad thing, and might allow me to make more
appropriate contributions in the future.
Now *that* is a worthwhile reason! :-)
Maybe I'll try fixing the
"isapc" machine type?! ;-)
Hmm. Trying to think of why you would need that (other than just the
standard "because it's there"), and coming up empty. I *think* even
MSDOS will boot on an i440fx guest...