Hi Peter, On 20/01/2017 16:52, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 10 October 2016 at 17:35, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: >> We should avoid exposing new hardware (through DT and ACPI) on older >> machine types. This patch keeps 2.7 and older from changing, despite >> the introduction of ITS support for 2.8. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> >> --- >> >> As Eduardo pointed out long ago for a different reason, we should >> probably replace VirtGuestInfo with direct use of VirtMachineClass, >> like x86 has done to replace PcGuestInfo with direct use of >> PCMachineClass. I'll work on that, but wanted to get this ITS >> fixup in sooner than later, so I'm posting this patch now, which >> requires 'no_its' to be duplicated. > > So this patch added a no_its flag which gets set for virt-2.7 > and earlier, but there's no user-facing way to say "I'd like > a virt-2.8 board with no ITS", right? That's a bit unfortunate > because the ITS can't be migrated, which means there's no way > to ask for a post-2.7 virt board which can be migrated...
Sorry for the delay. For 2.9 machine I can add a new property that would allow the user to deselect the ITS. Would that make sense? Thanks Eric > thanks > -- PMM >
