[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#825931: s390-netdevice virtio interface choice misleading


On 05/31/2016 09:01 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> I find logic in s390-netdevice. The priority of many questions is too
> high, thus e.g. if one uses qeth port 0, one has to explicitely
> preseed that, even though a common case qeth port 0 will work in
> majority (sensible default) cases.

I downgraded it from critical to medium. It was only recently added anyway.

> Looking at the code it is impossible to configure IUCV. And there is
> nothing to do in case of virtio. I think no questions should be even
> asked if there are no CTC/QETH cards to activate. And be optional
> similarly to how you propose in your patch.

Can you clarify your first sentence? Should IUCV support be removed?

It's unfortunate that your last patch of exiting when no CTC/QETH
devices are present only went to the BTS and hence I never saw it. It
would also actively break the still present IUCV support, hence I
actually need some input as to why you think it's broken. And possibly a
way of checking if there actually is a possibility of using IUCV for the
VM in question.

Kind regards and thanks
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: