[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: does drive_get_next(IF_NONE) make sense?

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: does drive_get_next(IF_NONE) make sense?
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:28:39 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:24, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Same question as for Hao Wu's series: Wouldn't the proper solution be to
>> add a drive property to the machine type?
>> If you can't use -blockdev, it's not done right.
> Is there an example of "doing it right" for built-in-to-the-machine
> devices?
> (My experience with the new-style options is that almost
> always they're designed for x86 where the device they're attached
> to is also created on the command line, and then handling of boards
> where the device is builtin is either an afterthought or forgotten.
> See also -netdev, where it took forever for built-in-ethernet to
> be usable.)

I'm afraid the situation for onboard block devices is far worse than it
ever was for NICs.  See my reply "On configuring onboard block devices
with -blockdev" to Kevin's other message on the topic.

To be fair, improving onboard device configuration is *hard*.  Our
general device configuration interface doesn't cover them, and we've so
far failed finding a general solution.  Without one, we're drowning in
the sheer number of boards and onboard devices.  Which is ever growing.

reply via email to

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