Re: vio9p vs. GENERIC.local vs. XEN3_DOM[0U]

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>> 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		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B