On 22.05.14 22:36, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
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?
Very much so, yes. Please put it on the agenda.
Alex
--
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
