qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] hw/i386: Deprecate the machines pc-0.10 to p


From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] hw/i386: Deprecate the machines pc-0.10 to pc-1.2
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:02:46 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1

On 07/13/17 02:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 02:30:06AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 07/12/17 10:22, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> We don't want to carry along old machine types forever. If we are able to
>>> remove the pc machines up to 0.13 one day for example, this would allow
>>> us to eventually kill the code for rombar=0 (i.e. where QEMU copies ROM
>>> BARs directly to low memory). Everything up to pc-1.2 is also known to
>>> have issues with migration.  So let's start with a deprecation message
>>> for the old machine types so that the (hopefully) few users of these old
>>> systems start switching over to newer machine types instead.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  Note: Even if we mark all these old machines as deprecated, this ofcourse
>>>  doesn't mean that we also have to remove them all at once later when we
>>>  decide to finally really remove some. We could then also start by removing
>>>  0.10 and 0.11 only, for example (since there should really be no users left
>>>  for these), or only up to 0.13 (to be able to kill rombar=0).
>>
>> On a tangent: "rombar=0" shouldn't be killed before the libvirt domain
>> XML regains the ability to say, "don't load any oprom for this device".
>> Please see <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1425058>.
>>
>> (Please note that it is not lost on me that rombar=0 is a poor
>> substitute for romfile='', but currently rombar=0 is the only fallback
>> through libvirt. See the BZ pls.)
>>
>> Thanks
>> Laszlo
> 
> rombar=0 would start meaning "no ROM", not "no BAR but still add a
> rom".
> 

Ah! In that case, it would actually obviate RHBZ#1425058.

Thanks,
Laszlo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]