On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 05:39:11PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:02:27AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:34:41PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 03:22:29PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:04:00PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 01:17:13PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:06:42PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:55:53PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 07:43:41PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:16:27PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:22:30PM +0300, Michael S. > > > > > > > > > > Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:31:10AM +1000, David > > Gibson wrote: > [snip] > > > > > > So let's make it fail on multiple roots, and output a message along > > > > > > the > > > > > > lines of "please use -device virtio-net-pci instead". > > > > > > > > > > How to produce a meaningful error like that isn't totally obvious, > > > > > since the test for multiple roots is down in find_primary_pci_bus() > > > > > (or whatever), and once we get back up to pci_nic_init() we just know > > > > > that pci_get_bus_devfn() failed for some reason. > > > > > > > > What other possible reason for it to fail? > > > > > > Unparseable address (it can be user specified) or internal failure to > > > initialize the device are the first two that spring to mind.. > > > > Well, let's change the API in some way. How about we > > pass root to pci_get_bus_devfn? > > Alrighty, that I can do. I was initially hesitant, since at least > notionally the given PCI address string can include a domain, but > we're already pretty much explicitly disabling that, and none of the > built-in examples use it, so I think it's fine. > > > > > > > > Plus on spapr we already support the > > > > > > > legacy nic options; it would be very strange for them to suddenly > > > > > > > break when we add a second host bridge. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure who "we" is here. IMHO user should ask for a new > > > > > > machine type with two roots explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be thinking of the number of host bridges as a fixed > > > > > property of the platform, which it isn't on spapr. PCI host bridges > > > > > are just another device. Large scale real hardware can easily have > > > > > dozens of them. > > > > > > > > Absolutely. I'm not thinking of it as fixed. > > > > I'm thinking of the *default* number of pci host bridges > > > > as fixed. If a user is smart enough to use -device to create > > > > a host bridge, said user can learn about -device for creating > > > > a nic. > > > > > > Hm, I guess. I'm still uncomfortable with breaking a documented > > > option, even if its not the preferred method these days. > > > > Let's add > > Uh.. was there supposed to be the rest of a sentence there?
I meant let's add documentation that says -net nic is deprecated, and not supported with multiple root devices, and to use -device instead. > -- > David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code > david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ > _other_ > | _way_ _around_! > http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
