On 22/05/14 10:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 22/05/2014 10:23, Michael Mueller ha scritto: >> On Wed, 21 May 2014 15:22:35 +0200 >> Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> >> I have seen the slides from Eduardo which he presented during this years >> DevConf in Brno and made my comments according the s390x implementation >> on that. Is you will see, this is mostly overlapping except for the model >> definition authority that I clearly see on qemu's side. >> >> See pdf attachment. > > More comments: > > - "Only one machine type in s390 case which is -machine s390-virtio-ccw" > > This probably should change sooner or later, as soon as the implementation > becomes stable enough. Versioning is necessary for live migration across > different QEMU version. Perhaps start versioning in 2.2, i.e. start making > s390-virtio-ccw-2.1 an alias for s390-virtio-ccw now? > > Note that new virtio device features can appear at any time outside the s390 > code, and will take part in versioning as well. > > - "No enforce option" > > Strongly suggest making enforce the only possible behavior. > > - "Not in the s390x case, because the KVM facility mask limits the cpu model > specific facilities" > > What if the KVM facility mask changes? For x86, nowadays new CPUID bits are > only introduced in KVM when a new processors comes out. But if we introduced > an older CPUID bit, it would be a huge complication for backwards > compatibility. Is it different for s390? > > Paolo >
I guess we need to have a full picture here. Would this topic be suitable for the KVM call? Christian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
