On Wed, 2019-02-06 at 12:33 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 1/31/19 11:02 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
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 :)
My reason for objection was to not bog down the patch series with essentially tangential discussions. If I added the patch here, and it prompted a big discussion, it could block the whole series (this should all be committed as a single unit so apps can key off a single domaincapabilities field or libvirt version to determine if -transitional support is in place)
This is why I suggested earlier that it could be its own separate patch, to be either squashed into this one or dropped entirely based on feedback.
It's also kind of new territory to add a model that's essentially an alias like pavel points out, which potentially deserves a wider discussion, and buried in a big series isn't really the place IMO. Plus I wanted to dig a bit into the archives to see why model=virtio-scsi naming was chosen in the first place, maybe there was a specific argument for that naming.
All that said, I'm not opposed to the idea and it is on my list to look into after this series is committed. It's just very much a side issue here IMO
Yeah, doing it as a follow-up works too, as long as we can squeeze everything into the same libvirt release if we decide to go for it. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization