On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:57:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 25/06/2018 21:51, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > In either case, I'm not arguing (yet) for changing the default > > upstream. I'm just arguing for upstream QEMU to not make any > > promises about the default. > > It would be a guest ABI breakage for TCG guests, so it would only apply > to new machine types. I don't think it's worth the complication.
That's exactly the point: I want to stop promising a stable guest ABI when the accelerator is omitted, because I see no benefit in wasting energy on this. (I don't think we ever kept the guest ABI correctly with TCG, by the way.) > > BTW, another thing that needs documenting is ABI promises for HAX and > WHPX. [...] Absolutely. -- Eduardo
