On 25.07.2011, at 14:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:47:51AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 07/25/2011 07:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 25.07.2011, at 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> >>>> On 25 July 2011 12:48, Peter Maydell<peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> For ARM you absolutely should not be relying on the default >>>>> machine type (not least because it's an incredibly ancient >>>>> dev board which nobody uses any more). An ARM kernel is >>>>> generally fairly specific to the hardware platform being >>>>> emulated, so you should know which machine you're intending >>>>> to run on and specify it explicitly. >>>> >>>> In fact having thought about it a bit I'm going to go further >>>> and say that the whole idea of a "default machine" is a rather >>>> x86-centric idea -- most architectures don't really have a >>>> single machine type that's used by just about everybody, >>>> always has been, and isn't likely to become obsolete in the >>>> future. So if we're reworking the command line API to >>>> supersede "-M" then we shouldn't have a default at all. >>> >>> That's not exactly true. For PPC, everyone so far expects a Mac to pop up. >> >> Except if you're running on an IBM Power box, then you definitely >> expect a pseries guest to pop up. >> >> We really need to enable the default config file (yes, we have a >> default config file) can express the default machine. > > +1 to this. > > I was going to say there's missing information here, ie. if I had a > Debian/arm kernel know, what machine should I use, but it looks like a > config file would provide this missing information.
Well, what we really want is an image file format that also pulls along machine config files. Or just have 2 files for now - an image and a machine description config. VMs simply are more than just their hard disks ;). Alex
