> On Apr 25, 2020, at 12:14 AM, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 03:23:56PM +0000, Ani Sinha wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 22, 2020, at 4:15 PM, Ani Sinha <ani.si...@nutanix.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 21, 2020, at 8:32 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 02:45:04PM +0000, Ani Sinha wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 20, 2020, at 8:32 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> But I for one would like to focus on keeping PIIX stable >>>>>> and focus development on q35. Not bloating PIIX with lots of new >>>>>> features is IMHO a good way to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Does this mean this patch is a no-go then? :( >>>> >>>> I'd support this patch, as I don't think it can really be described as >>>> bloat or destabalizing. It is just adding a simple property to >>>> conditionalize existing functionality. Telling people to switch to Q35 >>>> is unreasonable as it is not a simple 1-1 conversion from existing use >>>> of PIIX. Q35 has much higher complexity in its configuration, has higher >>>> memory overhead per VM too, and lacks certain features of PIIX too. >>> >>> Cool. How do we go forward from here? >>> >> >> We would really appreciate if we can add this extra knob in >> Qemu. Maybe someone else also in the community will find this >> useful. We don’t want to maintain this patch internally forever >> but rather prefer we maintain this as a Qemu community. > > Michael, I agree with Daniel here and I don't think we should > start refusing PIIX features if they are useful for a portion of > the QEMU community. > > Would you reconsider and merge this patch?
Thanks!
