On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:11:57 +0100 Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 11/27/2017 01:56 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:39:04 +0100 > > Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> On 11/24/2017 05:15 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> (Unless we simply make this a "default cssid" prop after all - then it > >>> would be more than just a simple indication for libvirt...) > >>> > >> > >> We are now talking about the "cssid-unrestricted" property. The default > >> cssid is not something I would like to do any time soon. > > > > What's so bad about this? As said above, I think it would be much more > > useful. If libvirt can detect r/o vs. r/w for properties, we can simply > > start out with a r/o variant now... > > > > I'm not sure I understand you. Are you proposing the following: > Drop the restriction, but don't indicate this via a read only > "cssid-unrestricted" device property but via a "default-css" > read only machine property. > > Libvirt then should know that if "default-css" is present then > we don't have this virtual into 0xfe and non virtual into 0xfd > restriction any more. Yes.
