On 29 Sep 2014, at 11:08, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 09:33:08PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> Hang on a second! v2 of this patch DID use a new virtual machine,
> called exactly that. I thought you were objecting to that and
> wanting a machine parameter instead! It's far easier with a new
> machine type, and I'd far prefer a new machine type.
>
> If you were just objecting to the fact that pc-1.0 was made to
> be an alias of either one or the other at compile time, simply
> drop the second patch of the v2 patchset.
I think same applies to v3 that I reviewed right?
Absolutely, I'm fine with just a new machine type.
This means that management tools will need to learn to
add -qemu-kvm suffix to the machine name if user
requested compatibility with qemu-kvm.
I think there were some implementation issues with patch 1/2
though.
> If we have a new machine type, I don't /think/ I need the early_init
> thing at all (I may be wrong about that).
Good.
OK, I will respin this when I get a chance with the new machine
type back and hopefully address some of the other issues you
brought up.
--
Alex Bligh