Re: [Engine-devel] host cpu feature
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com>
To: "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
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>
> To: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com>,
"engine-devel"
> <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
> 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.