On 9/20/2016 8:44 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 05:05:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 20/09/2016 16:58, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>>> As I've said in my earlier reply - libvirt will *NOT* support passing
>>>>> arbitrary vendor specific parameters as a blob via the XML. Everything
>>>>> that appears in the XML must be *fully* specified and explicitly
>>>>> represented in the XML  as a distinct attribute or element.
>>>> Are generic key/value attributes (e.g. a <attribute> element) acceptable?
>>> Only if libvirt has a known list of valid attribute key names upfront.
>>> We don't want to just blindly expose arbitary vendor specific keys exposed
>>> by the kernel. Libvirt's job is to ensure the XML representation is vendor
>>> portable

In key/value attributes (taking example from proposed xml file)

<attribute name='resolution'>2560x1600</attribute>

'Key' (i.e. 'resolution') should be known upfront, not the value, right?


>> Ok, then I guess vendor-specific mdev parameters are out completely.  Or
>> could they be added under a separate namespace, like QEMU passthrough?
> The QEMU XML namespace that allows passthrough is intended either as a
> short term hack to let people experiment with new QEMU features, before
> they get explicitly represented in the main XML namespace, or in a few
> cases, for things we never want to support officially.  Any VM which
> uses the separate namespace is tainted, which means if theres a bug
> report we'll require the reported to remove whatever config caused
> the tainting and then reproduce the problem.
> If the vendor specific mdev parameters are things that apps will often
> need to be able to set, then allowing it via a separate namespace is
> just providing a backdoor that everyone needs to use, defeating the
> point of using a separate namespace.
> We don't want to knowingly design a system which defacto requires
> the app to use the separate namespace most/all of the time.
> Regards,
> Daniel

libvir-list mailing list

Reply via email to