On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 08:25:49AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 25/05/2013 03:21, Bandan Das ha scritto: > > There is one user-visible effect: "-cpu ...,enforce" will stop failing > > because of missing KVM support for CPUID_EXT_MONITOR. But that's exactly > > the point: there's no point in having CPU model definitions that would > > never work as-is with neither TCG or KVM. This patch is changing the > > meaning of (e.g.) "-machine ...,accel=kvm -cpu Opteron_G3" to match what > > was already happening in practice. > > But then -cpu Opteron_G3 does not match a "real" Opteron G3. Is it > worth it?
No models match a "real" CPU this way, because neither TCG or KVM support all features supported by a real CPU. I ask the opposite question: is it worth maintaining an "accurate" CPU model definition that would never work without feature-bit tweaking in the command-line? -- Eduardo
