On 28 September 2015 at 16:31, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:13:08PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:43:39AM -0700, Peter Maydell wrote: >> > On 23 September 2015 at 07:18, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > > ARM/AArch64 KVM guests don't have any way to identify >> > > themselves as KVM guests (x86 guests use a CPUID leaf). Now, we >> > > could discuss all sorts of reasons why guests shouldn't need to >> > > know that, but then there's always some case where it'd be >> > > nice... Anyway, now that we have SMBIOS tables in ARM guests, >> > > it's easy for the guest to know that it's a QEMU instance. This >> > > patch takes that one step further, also identifying KVM, when >> > > appropriate. Again, we could debate why generally nothing >> > > should care whether it's of type QEMU or QEMU/KVM, but again, >> > > sometimes it's nice to know... >> > >> > This doesn't seem great to me, because it's ACPI/SMBIOS >> > specific. A mechanism that worked whether the guest was >> > booted via APCI or DT would seem preferable to me... >> >> SMBIOS is populated on both ACPI and devicetree boots. We already >> have detection in virt-what and systemd-detect-virt for DT boots, >> although it only detects QEMU (it can't determine if KVM is used). >> That detection is DT-specific, and much more of a heuristic, it >> checks for the presence of the fw-cfg node in the DT. Actually, I'd >> like to patch those virt detection tools to try SMBIOS first (which, >> with this patch, could also give KVM info), and then fall back to >> trying the current DT-only, QEMU-only detection, before giving up. >> > > Hi Peter, > > Anymore thoughts on this?
Well, OK I guess, but this all seems worryingly ad-hoc... Applied to target-arm.next. thanks -- PMM
