On 01/25/2012 02:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2012-01-25 13:15, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 01/25/2012 02:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>> > >>>> Would a machine option > >>>> "kvm_shadow_memory=n" be desirable? > >>> > >>> Not sure, this is a host option, not a guest option. Machine options > >>> should be guest-visible. > >> > >> machine options are not guest visible. Basically, this options falls > >> into the same category as kernel_irqchip. > > > > They should be. We should work hard to separate the guest ABI from > > everything else. Same as kvm-apic appearing in the qdev name. > > Which is NOT guest visible.
Right. I'm worried about some tool comparing the qdev/qom trees and concluding two machines are different even though they are identical wrt the guest. Too be fair, that applies to attributes as well. > > > >> Do we have alternatives? A top-level command line options is surely none. > > > > -kvm shadow-memory=n,... > > > > -accel kvm,shadow-memory=n,... > > Both are unneeded additional options. > > We already have -machine option=value. We just need to enable machines > like KVM-based ones to append their private ones to the common set. That > way you will get a proper error report when specifying a meaningless > combination like "accel=tcg,kernel_irqchip=on". Okay. I have an uneasy feeling about machine options for this, but nothing more. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
