On 8 February 2013 17:31, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 07.02.2013 19:56, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> An idle thought: I wonder if we could rearrange things so that >> the target-specific TCG init is called via tcg_init(), to >> parallel the way that target-specific KVM init is called >> via kvm_init()?
> I think that would be counter-productive. KVM is a host technology, it > depends on whether you're running the right target arch and whether it's > available/usable on your host. Since you're running on a single host, > there's only one KVM init to call. > > The reason we made it conditional to tcg_enabled() is QTest, which > doesn't need it. Nor will KVM on ARM. > > For TCG I'm hoping to enable multiple targets coexisting at some point, > so consolidating things into *CPUClass and instance_init seems better. > There's no ugly #ifdef'ery involved for TCG. That would suggest that some of the KVM init should also go via the CPU object; consider a system with one KVM-accelerated core and one TCG core of a different architecture. Anyway, it was just an idle thought, as I said. -- PMM
