On 23/11/2017 11:57, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100 >>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is >>>> there already a consensus that the next version will be "2.12" ? >>>> >>>> A couple of months ago, we discussed that we could maybe do a 3.0 after >>>> 2.11, e.g. here: >>>> >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-03/msg05056.html >>>> >>>> I'd still like to see that happen... Peter, any thoughts on this? >>> >>> So, as I just thought about preparing the new machine for s390x as >>> well: Did we reach any consensus about what the next qemu version will >>> be called? >> >> I haven't seen any sufficiently solid plan to make me want to >> pick anything except "2.12". > > I still don't think that we need a big plan for this... The change from > 1.7 to 2.0 was also rather arbitrary, wasn't it? > > Anyway, I've now started a Wiki page to collect ideas: > > https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/Version3.0 > > Maybe we can jump to version 3.0 if there are enough doable items on the > list that we can all agree upon. > > I've put "--accel kvm:hax:tcg" also on the doable list since I don't > remember any objections to that idea so far -- feel free to move it to > the controversial list instead if you think it needs more discussion.
"hax" is very far from feature parity with TCG, it doesn't even support CPUID (-cpu). "-accel kvm:hvf:tcg" could be a possibility, but only if we have resources to test it. As far as I know the only active x86 developer who owns a Mac is Igor? Paolo