On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 11:44:41AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 04/07/2017 10:28, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> +supported_kvm_target() { > >> + test "$kvm" = "yes" || return 1 > >> + glob "$1" "*-softmmu" || return 1 > >> + case "${1%-softmmu}:$cpu" in > >> + arm:arm | aarch64:aarch64 | \ > >> + i386:i386 | i386:x86_64 | i386:x32 | \ > >> + x86_64:i386 | x86_64:x86_64 | x86_64:x32 | \ > > > > IIUC, 'x86_64:i386' is claiming that you can run x86_64 > > KVM guests on an i386 host. I thought that was impossible, > > only 32-on-64 being allowed not 64-on-32. > > You can use qemu-system-x86_64 to run i386 KVM guests, by disabling long > mode with -cpu. It's not a common scenario though.
Wow, obscure :-) > > >> + mips:mips | mipsel:mips | \ > >> + ppc:ppc | ppcemb:ppc | ppc64:ppc | \ > >> + ppc:ppc64 | ppcemb:ppc64 | ppc64:ppc64 | \ > > > > Same question here with ppc64:ppc suggesting you can > > run 64-bit guest with KVM on a 32-bit host ? > > I'm not sure about this one, but right now it is allowed so this patch > is not changing anything. > > >> + s390x:s390x) > >> + return 0 > >> + ;; > >> + esac > >> + return 1 > >> +} > >> + > >> +supported_xen_target() { > >> + test "$xen" = "yes" || return 1 > >> + glob "$1" "*-softmmu" || return 1 > >> + case "${1%-softmmu}:$cpu" in > >> + arm:arm | aarch64:aarch64 | \ > >> + i386:i386 | i386:x86_64 | x86_64:i386 | x86_64:x86_64) > > This again is claiming support for 64-bit guests with Xen on a > > 32-bit host, which AFAIK is impossible. > > 32-bit dom0 with 64-bit guests actually is not only possible, but also > widely used. Oh, i guess I'm missing the distinction between 64-bit hypervisor vs 32-bit dom-0, which still lets you use 64-bit dom-U. In that case, Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|