On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:56:18AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/31/2014 11:51 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> >> Allowing -device may be okay, since in the (very?) long term -device
> >> can be replaced by -object. But -object is definitive.
> >
> > OK, one additional reason to try device_add
On 01/31/2014 11:51 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> Allowing -device may be okay, since in the (very?) long term -device
>> can be replaced by -object. But -object is definitive.
>
> OK, one additional reason to try device_add first.
>
> But then we have one additional problem:
>
> * We want to
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:52:57PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 31/01/2014 17:42, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> >>> It looks like only -device would be able to create actual CPU models,
> >>> but for -device to work we need as minimum this series and conversion
> >>> of CPU features to properti
Il 31/01/2014 17:42, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> It looks like only -device would be able to create actual CPU models,
> but for -device to work we need as minimum this series and conversion
> of CPU features to properties in tree. Then I guess we can override
> cannot_instantiate_with_device_a
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:17:53 -0200
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:50:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > Il 31/01/2014 15:48, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
> > > >that's abusing of object-add interface and
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:17:53 -0200
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:50:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 31/01/2014 15:48, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
> > >that's abusing of object-add interface and due to recent changes,
> > >object-add
> > >won't accept arbitrary objects
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:50:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 31/01/2014 15:48, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
> >that's abusing of object-add interface and due to recent changes, object-add
> >won't accept arbitrary objects.
>
> I hope that sooner or later device hotplug will be doable with
> ob
Il 31/01/2014 16:10, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
I don't mind which command is used, as long as we have the same effect.
I used object-add in my example because device_add rejects the CPU
classes by now (because they have cannot_instantiate_with_device_add_yet=true).
But now I have one question:
(CCing Luiz, in case he can give some advice about the expectations of
QMP semantics stability)
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:48:53PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:48:52 -0200
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> > Is there any hope to get this into QEMU 2.0, or it is now too late? I
Il 31/01/2014 15:48, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
that's abusing of object-add interface and due to recent changes, object-add
won't accept arbitrary objects.
I hope that sooner or later device hotplug will be doable with
object-add too. But yes, in the meanwhile device_add could work, and
this
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:48:52 -0200
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Is there any hope to get this into QEMU 2.0, or it is now too late? I got
> almost no feedback on take 6 (submitted November 27).
>
> This is the main blocker to allow libvirt finally implement an equivalent to
> the
> "enforce" flag,
11 matches
Mail list logo
