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