On 03/22/2012 12:14 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37:39AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/22/2012 04:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:53:19AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
So, this problem is solved if the defaults are easily found on /usr/share.
What problem is solved and why are we mixing machine configuration files and cpu configuration files? They are different and should be treated differently. -nodefconfig exists only because there is not machine configuration files currently. With machine configuration files libvirt does not need -nodefconfig because it can create its own machine file and make QEMU use it. So specifying machine file on QEMU's command line implies -nodefconfig. The option itself loses its meaning and can be dropped.
No, -nodefconfig means "no default config".
As with many projects, we can have *some* configuration required.
The default configure should have a:
[system] readconfig=@SYSCONFDIR@/cpu-models-x86_64.cfg
Not @SYSCONFDIR@, but @DATADIR@. CPU models belong to /usr/share because they aren't meant to be changed by the user (I think I already explained why: because we have to be able to deploy fixes to them).
Stanza by default. If libvirt wants to reuse this, they can use -readconfig if they use -nodefconfig.
You are just repeating how you believe it should work based on the premise that "cpudefs are configuration". We're discussing/questioning this exact premise, here, and I would really appreciate to hear why the model Gleb is proposing is not valid.
More precisely, this part:
cpu-models-x86.conf is not a configuration file. It is hardware description file. QEMU should not lose capability just because you run it with -nodefconfig. -nodefconfig means that QEMU does not create machine for you, but all parts needed to create a machine that would have been created without -nodefconfig are still present. Not been able to create Nehalem CPU after specifying -nodefconfig is the same as not been able to create virtio-net i.e the bug.
And the related points Gleb mentioned further in this thread.
Because the next patch series that would follow would be a -cpu-defs-path that would be a one-off hack with a global variable and a -no-cpu-defs. So let's avoid that and start by having a positive configuration mechanism that the user can use to change the path and exclude it. My suggestion eliminate the need for two future command line options. Regards, Anthony Liguori