On 23/11/2017 14:13, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 14:02:12 +0100 > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 23/11/2017 13:39, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> I'm wondering how many people want to run e.g. x86_64-on-x86_64 >>> _without_ using an available kvm (and I expect those people to >>> explicitly specify tcg). >> >> I disagree. I expect them to be "power users" enough to know that >> qemu-system-x86_64 defaults to TCG. > > Do we have any idea (from questions, bugzillas, ...) about which kind > of people actually do that? > > [Coming from s390x, where tcg cannot run most current distros, I'm > lacking data.]
For example Linux or other OS developers that want to test x86 features not in any shipping processor. (See for example 5-level page tables that were recently contributed to QEMU). >> In theory I don't like it either (and I hadn't thought about it until >> today). In practice, qemu-kvm is not going away from >> blogs/scripts/tutorials in a decade, so we might as well embrace it... > > One issue I see is that this naming convention only works with > same-architecture accelerators. You can't have a qemu-tcg as you don't > know which architecture is supposed to be emulated. (Or if you use > qemu-tcg as a shorthand for same-architecture emulation, you still have > the long names for anything else, which is even more confusing.) Right, there would be no qemu-tcg, that would keep qemu-system-ARCH. Paolo
