On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:37:39PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 10/22/12 12:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:58:32AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >>> Would it make sense to temporarily rename the machine type e.g. > >>> pc-q35-experimental to stress it's not fully supported? > >> > >> I don't think this is needed as piix will continue to be the default. > > > > Well q35 is not yet 100% ready. > > I know. > > > The point was to hide it from libvirt. > > libvirt should support pc-q35 not pc-q35-experimental, then > > it will not cause trouble. > > You'll not going to hide it that way. Libvirt will just 'qemu -M ?' > where q35 will show up even if you rename it to be postfixed -experimental. > > But as long as 'pc' continues to be the default the causal user will > never ever notice q35 is there, at least not with virt-manager (dunno > about boxes) as there is simply no gui way to pick the machine type. > You'll have to explicitly "virsh edit $guest" to switch it to q35. > > So I'm not sure what you are worryed about.
I worry about need to maintain bug for bug compatibility on the unlikely chance that the work to complete it gets delayed and we release it in an unready state. > But in any case this needs > discussion with the libvirt folks to make sure it will actually work as > intended. /me tends to think a experimental bit in machine_info (which > is then printed by 'qemu -M ?' and the QOM-version of that) is more > useful than playing tricks with the name. > > cheers, > Gerd I agree it's best to ask libvirt folks what's the right way to hide a machine type from it. Add a flag so it's not listed in -M ? ? Jason, do you know? -- MST