On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 04:57:21PM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 14:11:11 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > The qemu32/qemu64 models are weird in that the exact combination of > > CPUID flags does not match any actual processor. kvm32 and kvm64 are > > a better match when not using TCG. Use them when -cpu is only needed > > to hardcode a 32-bit guest arch or for kvmclock. > > I don't think we can do this as it means the guest CPU may change unexpectedly > for existing domains. A 32b domain started on current libvirt would see > qemu32, > while the same domain started after this patch would see kvm32.
Also, IIUC, kvm32 is a fairly newly introduced CPU type for KVM - ie most deployments of KVM won't support it. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
