Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 04/11] conf: Add device address type for dimm devices

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:38:29PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: >ACPI Dimm devices are described by the slot and base address. Add a new >address type to be able to describe such address. >--- > docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 18 +++++++++++ > src/conf/domain_conf.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > src/conf/domain_conf.h | 9 ++++++ > 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >diff --git a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >index acfa16a..1824741 100644 >--- a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >+++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >@@ -3993,6 +3993,18 @@ > </attribute> > </optional> > </define> >+ <define name="acpidimmaddress"> >+ <optional> >+ <attribute name="slot"> >+ <ref name="unsignedInt"/> >+ </attribute> >+ </optional> >+ <optional> >+ <attribute name="base"> >+ <ref name="hexuint"/> >+ </attribute> >+ </optional> >+ </define> > <define name="devices"> > <element name="devices"> > <interleave> >@@ -4407,6 +4419,12 @@ > </attribute> > <ref name="isaaddress"/> > </group> >+ <group> >+ <attribute name="type"> >+ <value>acpi-dimm</value> >+ </attribute> >+ <ref name="acpidimmaddress"/> >+ </group> > </choice> > </element> > </define> I've got 2 questions here: 1) Why not just "dimm"? I feel like the "acpi" complicates everything.

2) It looks like we won't do any address validation or allocation, is that planned?. I hope this won't end up like other address types where we just wait for qemu to fail. Also, if base[n+1] is just base[n]+size[n], then there should be no problem assigning proper addresses automatically. I think it'd be much less pain to automatically assign them in libvirt then making it mandatory for the management application.a