Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains

[Pierre Morel]

On 23/08/2018 13:31, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:43:42 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 23/08/2018 12:25, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400
> > > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >    
> > > > One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian
> > > > earlier
> > > > today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that
> > > > indicates
> > > > whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default
> > > > could be
> > > > true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains
> > > > as well
> > > > as satisfy the convention.
> > >
> > > Would this additional attribute then control "add usage domains to the
> > > list of control domains automatically", or "don't allow to add a usage
> > > domain if it has not already been added as a control domain"?
> > >
> > > One thing I'm still unsure about is how libvirt comes into the picture
> > > here. Will it consume the setting, or actively manipulate it?
> > >
> > > [In general, I'm not very clear about how libvirt will interact with the
> > > whole infrastructure...]
> > >    
> >
> > When I read you it convince me that it is not wise to change anything
> > that has been already discuss and could impact the Libvirt.
>
> My main point basically was that we should get feedback from a libvirt
> POV :) The new attribute may make sense, or not; but I'm really feeling
> a bit in the dark with regard to libvirt.

Me too, this explains my conservative approach ;)



--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in BÃblingen - Germany