On 03/26/2012 09:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> Yes, that's one reason. But maybe a user wants to have a whole
>>> different set of machine types and doesn't care to have the ones we
>>> provide. Why prevent a user from doing this?
>>
>> How are we preventing a user from doing it? In what way
On 03/26/2012 09:03 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> I think what we want to move toward is a -no-machine option which
> allows a user to explicitly build a machine from scratch. That is:
>
> qemu -no-machine -device i440fx,id=host -device isa-serial,chr=chr0 ...
>
I'd call it -M bare-1.1, so that
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 01:11:04PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 10:40 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >On 03/25/2012 05:26 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>Put the emphasis around *configuration*.
> >>
> >>
> >>So how about:
> >>
> >>1) Load ['@SYSCONFDIR@/qemu/qemu.cfg',
> >>'@SYSCONFDIR@/
On 03/26/2012 11:14 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:03:21PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 01:59:05PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/26/2012 01:24 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
...
The command line becomes unstable if you use -nodefconfig.
-no-user-confi
On 03/26/2012 04:08 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
If I see something like -nodefconfig, I assume it will create a bare
bones guest that will not depend on any qemu defaults and will be stable
across releases.
That's not even close to what -nodefconfig is. That's pretty much
what -nodefaults is but -no
On 03/25/2012 01:09 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
Suppose we define the southbridge via a configuration file. Does that
mean we don't load it any more?
Yes. If I want the leanest and meanest version of QEMU that will
start in the smallest number of milliseconds, then being able to tell
QEMU not to lo
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:03:21PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 01:59:05PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 03/26/2012 01:24 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > The command line becomes unstable if you use -nodefconfig.
> > > >
> > > > -no-user-config solves this bu
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:19:13PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > (That's why I said that perhaps keymaps could become configuration
> > someday. Because maybe they can be converted to a key=value model
> > relatively easily)
> >
> Such whole sale approach is harmful since it starts to affect desi
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 01:59:05PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/26/2012 01:24 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > ...
> > > > The command line becomes unstable if you use -nodefconfig.
> > >
> > > -no-user-config solves this but I fully expect libvirt would continue to
> > > use
> > > -nodefconfig.
On 03/26/2012 01:24 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> ...
> > > The command line becomes unstable if you use -nodefconfig.
> >
> > -no-user-config solves this but I fully expect libvirt would continue to
> > use
> > -nodefconfig.
>
> Libvirt uses -nodefaults -nodefconfig because it wants to fully contr
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:26:57 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 10:16 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 03/25/2012 04:59 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> So how about:
>
> 1) Load ['@SYSCONFDIR@/qemu/qemu.cfg', '@SYSCONFDIR@/qemu/target-@ARCH@.cfg',
> '@DATADIR@/system.cfg', '@DATA
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:08:16AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> Exactly. The types are no different, so there's no reason to
> >> discriminate against types that happen to live in qemu-provided data
> >> files vs. qemu code. They aren't instantiated, so we lose nothing by
> >> creating the facto
On 03/25/2012 08:11 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> I don't think -nodefconfig (as defined) is usable, since there is no way
>> for the user to tell what it means short of reading those files.
>
> *if the user doesn't know specifics about this QEMU version.
>
> You make the assumption that all user
On 03/25/2012 10:40 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 05:26 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Put the emphasis around *configuration*.
So how about:
1) Load ['@SYSCONFDIR@/qemu/qemu.cfg',
'@SYSCONFDIR@/qemu/target-@ARCH@.cfg',
'@DATADIR@/system.cfg', '@DATADIR@/system-@ARCH@.cfg']
2) s
On 03/25/2012 08:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> I don't think this came out of happiness, but despair. Seriously,
>> keeping compatibility is one of the things we work hardest to achieve,
>> and we can't manage it for our command line?
>
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but we struggle and rarel
On 03/25/2012 10:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 05:30 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/25/2012 10:18 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 05:07 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
As log as qemu -nodefconfig -cpu westmere -M pc1.1
-nodefconfig is going to eventually mean that -cpu westmere an
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:06:03AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 09:46 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:09:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/25/2012 05:19 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>It's the Unix Philosophy:
> >>
> >>"Rule of Representation: Fold kno
On 03/25/2012 03:26 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> We would continue to have Westmere/etc in QEMU exposed as part of the
>>> user configuration. But I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have
>>> to modify QEMU any time a new CPU comes out.
>>
>> We have to. New features often come with new MS
On 03/25/2012 05:30 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 10:18 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 03/25/2012 05:07 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
As log as qemu -nodefconfig -cpu westmere -M pc1.1
>>>
>>>
>>> -nodefconfig is going to eventually mean that -cpu westmere and -M
>>> pc-1.1 will not wor
On 03/25/2012 05:26 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Put the emphasis around *configuration*.
>
>
> So how about:
>
> 1) Load ['@SYSCONFDIR@/qemu/qemu.cfg',
> '@SYSCONFDIR@/qemu/target-@ARCH@.cfg',
> '@DATADIR@/system.cfg', '@DATADIR@/system-@ARCH@.cfg']
>
> 2) system-@ARCH@.cfg will contain:
On 03/25/2012 10:18 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 05:07 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
As log as qemu -nodefconfig -cpu westmere -M pc1.1
-nodefconfig is going to eventually mean that -cpu westmere and -M
pc-1.1 will not work.
This is where QEMU is going. There is no reason that a normal
On 03/25/2012 10:16 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 04:59 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/25/2012 09:46 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 04:36 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Apart from the command line length, it confuses configuration with
definition.
There is no distinction with what
On 03/25/2012 05:07 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> As log as qemu -nodefconfig -cpu westmere -M pc1.1
>
>
> -nodefconfig is going to eventually mean that -cpu westmere and -M
> pc-1.1 will not work.
>
> This is where QEMU is going. There is no reason that a normal user
> should ever use -nodefconfi
On 03/25/2012 04:59 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 09:46 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 03/25/2012 04:36 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Apart from the command line length, it confuses configuration with
definition.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no distinction with what we have today. Our con
On 03/25/2012 09:58 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 03:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
qemu -M pc
Would effectively be short hand for -readconfig
/usr/share/qemu/machines/pc.cfg
In that case
qemu -cpu westmere
is shorthand
On 03/25/2012 09:46 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:09:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/25/2012 05:19 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
It's the Unix Philosophy:
"Rule of Representation: Fold knowledge into data so program logic
can be stupid and robust."
If it can be reasonab
On 03/25/2012 09:46 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 04:36 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Apart from the command line length, it confuses configuration with
definition.
There is no distinction with what we have today. Our configuration
file basically corresponds to command line options and as
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 03:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>> qemu -M pc
> >>>
> >>> Would effectively be short hand for -readconfig
> >>> /usr/share/qemu/machines/pc.cfg
> >>
> >> In that case
> >>
> >> qemu -cpu westmere
> >>
> >> is shorthan
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:09:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 05:19 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:50:18PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:31:21AM -0300, Eduardo
On 03/25/2012 04:36 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Apart from the command line length, it confuses configuration with
>> definition.
>
>
> There is no distinction with what we have today. Our configuration
> file basically corresponds to command line options and as there is no
> distinction in comm
On 03/25/2012 08:34 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 03:22 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
In that case
qemu -cpu westmere
is shorthand for -readconfig /usr/share/qemu/cpus/westmere.cfg.
This is not a bad suggestion, although it would make -cpu ? a bit
awkward. Do you see an advantage to
On 03/25/2012 03:22 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
In that case
qemu -cpu westmere
is shorthand for -readconfig /usr/share/qemu/cpus/westmere.cfg.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not a bad suggestion, although it would make -cpu ? a bit
>>> awkward. Do you see an advantage to this over
On 03/25/2012 08:21 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/11/2012 04:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
This discussion isn't about whether QEMU should have a Westmere
processor definition. In fact, I think I already applied that patch.
It's a discussion about how we handle this up and down the stack.
The q
On 03/25/2012 08:14 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 03:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
qemu -M pc
Would effectively be short hand for -readconfig
/usr/share/qemu/machines/pc.cfg
In that case
qemu -cpu westmere
is shorthand for -readconfig /usr/share/qemu/cpus/westmere.cfg.
This is n
On 03/11/2012 04:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Let me elaborate about the later. Suppose host CPU has kill_guest
>> feature and at the time a guest was installed it was not implemented by
>> kvm. Since it was not implemented by kvm it was not present in vcpu
>> during installation and the guest
On 03/25/2012 03:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> qemu -M pc
>>>
>>> Would effectively be short hand for -readconfig
>>> /usr/share/qemu/machines/pc.cfg
>>
>> In that case
>>
>> qemu -cpu westmere
>>
>> is shorthand for -readconfig /usr/share/qemu/cpus/westmere.cfg.
>
>
> This is not a bad sugge
On 03/25/2012 08:08 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2012 02:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
If cpu models are not part of configuration they should not be affected
by configuration mechanism. You are just avoiding addressing the real
question that if asked above.
I think you're just refusing to
On 03/25/2012 05:19 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:50:18PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:31:21AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wro
On 03/25/2012 02:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> If cpu models are not part of configuration they should not be affected
>> by configuration mechanism. You are just avoiding addressing the real
>> question that if asked above.
>
>
> I think you're just refusing to listen.
>
> The stated direction
On 03/25/2012 04:49 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 03:01:17PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
So let's avoid that and start by having a positive configuration
mechanism that the user can use to change the path and exclude it.
My suggestion eliminate the need for two future command
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:50:18PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:31:21AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > What does this mean? Will
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 03:01:17PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/22/2012 12:14 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37:39AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/22/2012 04:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:53:19AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On 03/22/2012 12:14 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37:39AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/22/2012 04:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:53:19AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
So, this problem is solved if the defaults are easily found on
/usr/share
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37:39AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/22/2012 04:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:53:19AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>So, this problem is solved if the defaults are easily found on
> >>/usr/share.
> >>
> >What problem is solved and wh
On 03/22/2012 04:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:53:19AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
So, trying to summarize what was discussed in the call:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:08:10AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Let's say we moved CPU definitions to /usr/share/qemu/cpu-models
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:31:21AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > What does this mean? Will -nodefconfig disable loading of bios.bin,
> > > option roms, keymaps?
>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:31:21AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:53:19AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > So, trying to summarize what was discussed in the call:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:53:19AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > So, trying to summarize what was discussed in the call:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:08:10AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > > Let's say we moved CPU defin
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:53:19AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> So, trying to summarize what was discussed in the call:
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:08:10AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > Let's say we moved CPU definitions to /usr/share/qemu/cpu-models.xml.
> > >
> > > Obviously, we'd w
I added a summary of the changes I am planning, at:
http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/CPUModels#Current_Issues_and_proposed_changes
I'm sure I forgot lots of details, so feel free to send me questions and
suggestions, or even edit the wiki page directly.
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 05:56:52PM -0300, Ed
- Original Message -
> On 03/12/2012 10:19 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> On 03/12/2012 02:12 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
> >>> On 03/12/2012 09:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> It's a trade off. From a RAS perspective, it's helpful to have
> >>>
So, trying to summarize what was discussed in the call:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:08:10AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Let's say we moved CPU definitions to /usr/share/qemu/cpu-models.xml.
> >
> > Obviously, we'd want a command line option to be able to change that
> > location so we'd intr
On 03/12/2012 10:19 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
- Original Message -
On 03/12/2012 02:12 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 03/12/2012 09:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
It's a trade off. From a RAS perspective, it's helpful to have
information about the host available in the guest.
If you're alrea
- Original Message -
> On 03/12/2012 02:12 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
> > On 03/12/2012 09:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >> It's a trade off. From a RAS perspective, it's helpful to have
> >> information about the host available in the guest.
> >>
> >> If you're already exposing a comp
On 03/12/2012 09:50 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 02:12 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 03/12/2012 09:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
It's a trade off. From a RAS perspective, it's helpful to have
information about the host available in the guest.
If you're already exposing a compatible fa
On 03/12/2012 02:12 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 03/12/2012 09:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
It's a trade off. From a RAS perspective, it's helpful to have
information about the host available in the guest.
If you're already exposing a compatible family, exposing the actual
processor seems to be
On 03/12/2012 09:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 01:53 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 03/11/2012 05:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-cpu best wouldn't solve this. You need a read/
On 03/12/2012 01:53 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 03/11/2012 05:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-cpu best wouldn't solve this. You need a read/write configuration
file where QEMU probes the a
On 03/11/2012 05:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-cpu best wouldn't solve this. You need a read/write configuration
file where QEMU probes the available CPU and records it to be used
for t
On 03/12/2012 01:30 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:41:06PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 17:50, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 04:49:47PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
[...]
IMO interpreting an explicit -cpu parameter depending on -M would
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:41:06PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 12.03.2012 17:50, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 04:49:47PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
[...]
> >> IMO interpreting an explicit -cpu parameter depending on -M would be
> >> wrong. Changing the default CPU ba
On 12.03.2012, at 18:53, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 12.03.2012 18:47, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 12 March 2012 17:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Also keep in mind linux-user. There's no concept of a machine there, but
>>> there's a cpu_copy() function used for forking that tries to re-create
>>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:53:27PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 12.03.2012 18:47, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> > On 12 March 2012 17:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> Also keep in mind linux-user. There's no concept of a machine there, but
> >> there's a cpu_copy() function used for forking that tri
Am 12.03.2012 18:47, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 12 March 2012 17:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Also keep in mind linux-user. There's no concept of a machine there, but
>> there's a cpu_copy() function used for forking that tries to re-create
>> the CPU based on its model.
>
> Incidentally, do you
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:41:06PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 12.03.2012 17:50, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 04:49:47PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> Am 11.03.2012 17:16, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:33:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12 March 2012 17:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Also keep in mind linux-user. There's no concept of a machine there, but
> there's a cpu_copy() function used for forking that tries to re-create
> the CPU based on its model.
Incidentally, do you know why the linux-user code calls cpu_reset on
the
Am 12.03.2012 17:50, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 04:49:47PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 11.03.2012 17:16, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:33:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:48:11AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 11:16 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:33:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 04:49:47PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 11.03.2012 17:16, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:33:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
Am 11.03.2012 17:16, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:33:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-cpu best wouldn't solve this. You need a read/write configuration
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:55:34PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:53:38PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:50:18PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:15:32PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 201
On 03/11/2012 11:16 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:33:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-cpu best wouldn't solve this. You need a read/write configuration
file whe
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:53:38PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:50:18PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:15:32PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:04:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 201
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:50:18PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:15:32PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:04:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:52:27AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 11,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:15:32PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:04:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:52:27AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > On 03/11/2012 08:27
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:32:21AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:15:32PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:04:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:52:27AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 201
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:15:32PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:04:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:52:27AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > On 03/11/2012 08:27
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:04:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:52:27AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > On 03/11/2012 08:27 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > >On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:24:47PM -06
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:41:32AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 10:12 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:16:49AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>If libvirt assumes anything about what kvm actually supports it is
> >>>working only by sheer luck.
> >>
> >>Well t
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:52:27AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 03/11/2012 08:27 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:24:47PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > >>Let's step back here.
> > >>
> > >>Why are
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 08:27 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:24:47PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>Let's step back here.
> >>
> >>Why are you writing these patches? It's probably not because you
> >>have a desire t
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:41:32AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 10:12 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:16:49AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>If libvirt assumes anything about what kvm actually supports it is
> >>>working only by sheer luck.
> >>
> >>Well t
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:33:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>-cpu best wouldn't solve this. You need a read/write configuration
> >>file where QEMU probes the available CPU and
On 03/11/2012 10:12 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:16:49AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
If libvirt assumes anything about what kvm actually supports it is
working only by sheer luck.
Well the simple answer for libvirt is don't use -nodefconfig and
then it can reuse the CPU
On 03/11/2012 09:56 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-cpu best wouldn't solve this. You need a read/write configuration
file where QEMU probes the available CPU and records it to be used
for the lifetime of the VM.
That what I thought too
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:16:49AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >If libvirt assumes anything about what kvm actually supports it is
> >working only by sheer luck.
>
> Well the simple answer for libvirt is don't use -nodefconfig and
> then it can reuse the CPU definitions (including any that the
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:12:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 08:27 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:24:47PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>Let's step back here.
> >>
> >>Why are you writing these patches? It's probably not because you
> >>have a desire t
On 03/11/2012 07:41 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:58:43PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:42:46PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I could have sworn we had this discussion a year ago or so, and had decided
that the default CPU models would be in s
On 03/11/2012 08:27 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:24:47PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Let's step back here.
Why are you writing these patches? It's probably not because you
have a desire to say -cpu Westmere when you run QEMU on your laptop.
I'd wager to say that no huma
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:24:47PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Let's step back here.
>
> Why are you writing these patches? It's probably not because you
> have a desire to say -cpu Westmere when you run QEMU on your laptop.
> I'd wager to say that no human has ever done that or that if they
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:58:43PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:42:46PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > >
> > > I could have sworn we had this discussion a year ago or so, and had
> > > decided
> > > that the default CPU models would be in something like
> > >
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 03:15:26PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 03:04 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 05:56:52PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>Resurrecting an old thread:
> >>
> >>I didn't see any clear conclusion in this thread (this is why I am
> >>re
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/10/2012 09:58 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:42:46PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I could have sworn we had this discussion a year ago or so, and had
decided
that the default
- Original Message -
> From: "Anthony Liguori"
> To: "Daniel P. Berrange" , libvir-l...@redhat.com,
> qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Gleb Natapov"
> , "Jiri Denemark" , "Avi Kivity"
> , a...@ovirt.org
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 1:24:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] Modern CPU
Am 10.03.2012 19:24, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> Humans probably do one of two things: 1) no cpu option or 2) -cpu host.
>
> So then why are you introducing -cpu Westmere?
[...]
> P.S. I spent 30 minutes the other day helping a user who was attempting
> to figure out whether his processor was a Con
On 03/10/2012 09:58 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:42:46PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I could have sworn we had this discussion a year ago or so, and had decided
that the default CPU models would be in something like
/usr/share/qemu/cpu-x86_64.conf
and loaded regar
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:42:46PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >
> > I could have sworn we had this discussion a year ago or so, and had decided
> > that the default CPU models would be in something like
> > /usr/share/qemu/cpu-x86_64.conf
> > and loaded regardless of the -nodefconfig sett
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:04:03PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 05:56:52PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Resurrecting an old thread:
> >
> > I didn't see any clear conclusion in this thread (this is why I am
> > resurrecting it), except that many were arguing that
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 03:15:26PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 03:04 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 05:56:52PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>Resurrecting an old thread:
> >>
> >>I didn't see any clear conclusion in this thread (this is why I am
> >>re
On 03/09/2012 03:04 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 05:56:52PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Resurrecting an old thread:
I didn't see any clear conclusion in this thread (this is why I am
resurrecting it), except that many were arguing that libvirt should
simply copy and/o
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
