Re: [Engine-devel] host cpu feature

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:14:46 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] host cpu feature > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt;, "engine-devel" > > <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 6:10:55 PM > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] host cpu feature > > > > > Alternative idea, inspired by "Thus, if you hit any bugs, you are > > > on > > > your own" (http://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsCPU wrt > > > 'host-passthrough'): > > > A config option to determine if we use host-model or > > > host-passthrough. > > > Y. > > > > > > > I do not think the engine should go to this level. > > ie- it can ask for passthrough as a feature, and the > > actual implementation is handled by vdsm. > > > > If vdsm decides over host-passthrough or host-model, then how will > the engine user know what exactly his VM gets. I think vdsm must be > told exactly what to do. > VDSM maintains some level of independence. This is why it the engine should be able to ask for passthrough as a feature. Otherwize vdsm will handle it. So for now I suggest we stick to passthrough only, and if we get an RFE for advanced mode we'll support the host model.

_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel