On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:13:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:29:27PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 05:26:46PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:33:10AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:21:52AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > > > If you see a mouse in a room, how likely is it that there's
> > > > > > a single mouse there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a PV technology which to me looks like it was
> > > > > > rushed through and not only set on by default, but
> > > > > > without a way to disable it - apparently on the assumption
> > > > > > there's 0 chance it can cause any damage. Now that
> > > > > > we do know the chance it's not there, why not go back
> > > > > > to the standard interface, and why not give
> > > > > > users a chance to enable/disable it?
> > > > > You should be able to disable it with: -device pvpanic,ioport=0
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't work for me.
> > >
> > > The internal pvpanic can be disabled by -global pvpanic.ioport=0.
> > > -device pvpanic,ioport=0 just adds another pvpanic device.
> > Yeah, good point.
>
> I tried this, this doesn't remove the device - merely sets the
> port to 0.
>
That's the point. And _STA will report it as disabled. You asked if the device
can be enable/disable above, not removed. It can.
--
Gleb.
