>> If virtio were declared normally in the kernels that provide it and >> declared as valid but specifically absent in XEN3_DOM* kernels? >> Then I think that's what I'd want (to my limited understanding, this >> is close to what "no virtio" does at present).
> A fair point, but are you suggesting that every bus that could ever > exist be declared and all other kernels have "no", as a general > approach? Well, every bus that you'd want to support this feature for. Alternatively, perhaps add some declaration that says "this is a valid bus name" without declaring any instances of it, then do the silent-drop thing for any attachment which is at a bus declared as valid but without instances. Then all - well, most - configs would include all-buses.conf or some such to get those declarations, then declare normally the buses they want to actually have. Of course, then you have people wondering why the new device attachment line they added isn't working. But you'll have that potential for _any_ design with a "silently drop this line" semantic. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
