Avi Kivity wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: >> Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> Howdy, >>> >>> Here's a tiny patch that adds a i386-kvm target. The main >>> difference between the i386-kvm and i386-softmmu target is that the >>> -kvm target does not have any of the dyngen infrastructure. This >>> means that it will build with gcc-4. I know you can do --cc=gcc to >>> use gcc-4 but quite a few versions of gcc-4 have trouble with >>> compiling dyngen. >>> >>> I also suspect this may prove useful down the road. What do other >>> people think? I'm not terribly tied to the i386-kvm name for what >>> it's worth. >>> >>> >> >> That kills the -no-kvm switch, which allows a single binary to be >> used both with and without kvm. Or do you think both target-i386+kvm >> and target-kvm ought to be kept? >> >> > > I meant here: target-i386 (with kvm support) and target-i386-kvm.
target-i386 is an architecture. It can currently generate i386-softmmu, i386-user, x86_64-softmmu, x86_64-user. We're simply adding the ability to generate i386-kvm and x86_64-kvm. I'd like to find another name. I still want to be able to support kvm/qemu in the normal i386-softmmu. Regards, Anthony Liguori >> My thinking about qemu integration is that kqemu/kvm code needs to be >> abstracted into an API to reduce the #ifdefing in qemu, and that API >> could call kqemu or kvm as appropriate. >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
