On 29 Sep 2014, at 11:08, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@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