[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Qemu-ppc] -nodefaults and available buses (was Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00
[Qemu-ppc] -nodefaults and available buses (was Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/15] qmp: Report supported device types on 'query-machines')
Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:10:47 -0200
(CCing the maintainers of the machines that crash when using
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 08:34:50PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> "default defaults" vs "-nodefault defaults"
> Two bad news:
> 1) We need to differentiate buses created by the machine with
> "-nodefaults" and buses that are created only without
> libvirt use -nodefaults when starting QEMU, so knowing which
> buses are available when using -nodefaults is more interesting
> for them.
> Other software, on the other hand, might be interested in the
> results without -nodefaults.
> We need to be able model both cases in the new interface.
> Suggestions are welcome.
The good news is that the list is short. The only machines
where the list of buses seem to change when using -nodefaults
On all cases above, the only difference is that a virtio bus is
available if not using -nodefaults.
Considering that the list is short, I plan to rename
'supported-device-types' to 'always-available-buses', and
document that it will include only the buses that are not
disabled by -nodefaults.
 I mean, the only ones from the set that don't crash with
-nodefaults. The ones below could not be tested:
> 2) A lot of machine-types won't start if using
> "-nodefaults -machine <machine>" without any extra devices or
> Lots of machines require some drives or devices to be created
> (especially ARM machines that require a SD drive to be
> Some machines will make QEMU exit, some of them simply segfault.
> I am looking for ways to work around it so we can still validate
> -nodefaults-based info on the test code.
The following machines won't work with -nodefaults:
These make QEMU segfault:
These exit with a "missing SecureDigital device" error: