On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:55:09PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
Hi Peter,
Am 08.08.2013 14:51, schrieb Peter Maydell:
[I missed this KVM call but the stuff about -cpu host ties into
an issue we've been grappling with for ARM KVM, so it seems
a reasonable jumping-off-point.]
On 6
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 02:53:30PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:29:07PM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 08:05:11PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 8 August 2013 19:39, Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org
wrote:
FWIW, from the
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 07:20:41PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
For ARM you can't get at feature info of the host from userspace
(unless you want to get into parsing /proc/cpuinfo), so my current
idea is to have KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT support a target-cpu-type
which means whatever host CPU is.
On 8 August 2013 13:51, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
For ARM you can't get at feature info of the host from userspace
(unless you want to get into parsing /proc/cpuinfo), so my current
idea is to have KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT support a target-cpu-type
which means whatever host CPU
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:29:07PM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 08:05:11PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 8 August 2013 19:39, Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org
wrote:
FWIW, from the kernel point of view I'd much prefer to return this is
the type of
Am 09.08.2013 15:12, schrieb Peter Maydell:
possibly add support
for -cpu host,+32bitvm style syntax.
Please use only property-name=value style syntax.
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746
[I missed this KVM call but the stuff about -cpu host ties into
an issue we've been grappling with for ARM KVM, so it seems
a reasonable jumping-off-point.]
On 6 August 2013 16:15, Juan Quintela quint...@redhat.com wrote:
2013-08-06
--
What libvirt needs/miss Today?
- how to handle
Hi Peter,
Am 08.08.2013 14:51, schrieb Peter Maydell:
[I missed this KVM call but the stuff about -cpu host ties into
an issue we've been grappling with for ARM KVM, so it seems
a reasonable jumping-off-point.]
On 6 August 2013 16:15, Juan Quintela quint...@redhat.com wrote:
2013-08-06
On 8 August 2013 16:55, Andreas Färber afaer...@suse.de wrote:
Am 08.08.2013 14:51, schrieb Peter Maydell:
So, coming at this from an ARM perspective:
Should any target arch that supports KVM also support -cpu host?
If so, what should it do?
I think that depends on the target and
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 07:20:41PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 8 August 2013 16:55, Andreas Färber afaer...@suse.de wrote:
Am 08.08.2013 14:51, schrieb Peter Maydell:
So, coming at this from an ARM perspective:
Should any target arch that supports KVM also support -cpu host?
If so,
On 8 August 2013 19:39, Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org wrote:
FWIW, from the kernel point of view I'd much prefer to return this is
the type of VCPU that I prefer to emulate to user space on this current
host than having QEMU come up with its own suggestion for CPU and asking
the
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 08:05:11PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 8 August 2013 19:39, Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org wrote:
FWIW, from the kernel point of view I'd much prefer to return this is
the type of VCPU that I prefer to emulate to user space on this current
host than
On 8 August 2013 20:29, Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 08:05:11PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 8 August 2013 19:39, Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org wrote:
FWIW, from the kernel point of view I'd much prefer to return this is
the
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:48:23PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 8 August 2013 20:29, Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 08:05:11PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 8 August 2013 19:39, Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org
wrote:
FWIW,
On 8 August 2013 21:57, Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org wrote:
I'm fine with having a discovery mechanism for the GIC and not for the
CPU, if there's an implicit discovery mechanism for the CPU. But are
we sure there will not be cases where we want to know the list of
available
15 matches
Mail list logo
