On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 08:02:32PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 7 January 2013 19:58, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote: > >> The modifications will be transparent to the user, as we will keep > >> virtio-x-pci devices. > > > > Then what's the point of all this? > > > > -device virtio-pci,id=transport1 -device virtio-net,bus=transport1 > > > > or > > > > -device virtio-mmio,id=transport1 -device virtio-net,bus=transport1 > > > > Is simply an insane way to create a network device. > > 1. You wouldn't create the virtio-mmio transport on the command line, > the machine model does it (it has to because it's a sysbus device > and it needs the address/irq lines wiring up properly), so it's just > "-device virtio-net" (and let qemu find the bus automatically)
Bus auto-detection sounds good and would be nice for pci too. We had things like model=virtio originally which is pretty close. But the issue is, how then do you pass bus specific arguments like pci slot? This is what caused us to go the virtio-net-pci route to begin with. > 2. We shouldn't be making command line simplicity drive how we > model devices inside QEMU. Confused. I was told that enabling -device virtio-pci,id=transport1 -device virtio-net,bus=transport1 is the reason we have this patchset. > If we wanted to do that we should have > stuck with the old -net command line arguments which are rather > more userfriendly IMHO. The main thing that confused people with -net was the vlans and the need to specify -net twice. A good UI would have been e.g. -nic model=virtio,net=user. But one bad UI does not justify another one. > If commandline confusion is getting to > be a problem with all the -device foo stuff then we should probably > fix that at the UI level. > > -- PMM I'd like to see a proposal about how we are going to do this. -- MST
