On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:11:57PM +0300, Ivan Mishonov wrote:
I'd like to hear Roman's opinion on this too since he wrote the initial implementation. As for the command line arguments I was looking at <qemu:commandline> since it's doing exactly the same thing and I thought it would be nice to be consistent with it
It would still be reasonable to allow <bhvyve:commandline> for arbitrary passthrough of new features which have no XML defined for them. I just think it is reasonable to model these two example explicitly. The namespaced passthrough is intended for short term hacks primarily.
On 08/10/2018 05:57 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
Yes, this is totally doable. I just don't know if it's a good idea to add a new device type specifically for bhyve LPC and nothing else. Even if we do it like this I'll still have to send another patch including the bhyve XML namespace as we need to be able to pass extra command line options to the bhyve process related to unimplemented MSRs on AMD Zen systems. I thought I'd do the 2 things in a similar manner as both of them are strictly bhyve specific IMHO the LPC thing is definitely in scope for correct modelling in
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 05:47:40PM +0300, Ivan Mishonov wrote: the XML.
For the MSRs option, it is probable we'd consider that in scope as well. Currently KVM has a global "ignore unknown msrs" option in the kernel module, but I think it is conceptually reasonable to expect that to be settable on a per-VM basis.
Probably would do the MSRs thing as a <features> flag, as we stuff lots of random feature toggles under there
Regards, Daniel
Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|