On 08/05/2013 06:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Depending on the management, "management" could just be the user. Most of the time the user simply says to use virtio in the XML.
If it had to be specified manually every time, pvpanic would be just another knob that nobody uses.
Management tools already set XML appropriately depending on the guest. If users are happy to leave the device alone, we are also happy.
What if the guest is upgraded? How does the user know they have to add a magic device?
Device is useless without a driver anyway.
Who cares? It doesn't eat valuable resources. (20 bytes in the DSDT are not valuable, a PCI slot is).
How does user know there's need to install a driver?
Apparently that was not a problem in Vista and later, when Microsoft stopped bugging users with the wizard by default. And it's never been a problem in Linux.
But they don't need to know that, since probably no one will write a driver for pvpanic that runs on Windows XP (6 months before EOL) or 2003 (18 months before EOL).
So let's add -device pvpanic to QEMU, same as any device, if you think everyone absolutely wants this device explain this to libvirt guys and they'll add it by default, they are much closer to real users and can treat this appropriately.
It will be exactly the same problem, just thrown further from where you can find a real solution---which is not QEMU and is not libvirt, it is in the firmware.
Really, all guests handle the missing driver without asking the user.
Did you really check them all?
All those that have a GUI that runs by default, and manage drivers in said GUI...
At some point MSFT even issued a hotfix to disable the pesky Found New Hardware wizard. Let's treat it as a guest bug, hide the device altogether with _OSI (detecting Vista or 2008 or Linux), and declare that Windows 2000/XP/2003 lack support for pvpanic.
Sounds like you merely mean all windows guests.
... which means all Windows guests, yes.