On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:44:48 -0400 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? I put this patch on my review queue (hopefully next week I'd be able to get to it)
