On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:42:33PM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 22/04/2014 21:14, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
Not for "-cpu host". If somebody needs migration to work, they shouldn't
be using "-cpu host" anyway (I don't know if you have seen the other
comments in my message?).
I'm not entirely sure. If you have hosts with exactly identical
chipsets, "-cpu host" migration will in all likelihood work.
Marcelo's approach is safer.
If that didn't break other use cases, I would agree.
But "-cpu host" today covers two use cases: 1) enabling everything that
can be enabled, even if it breaks migration; 2) enabling all stuff that
can be safely enabled without breaking migration.
Why would it make sense to break (1) to try make (2) work?
[1] I would even argue that we never did both at the same time."-cpu
host" depends on host hardware capabilities, host kernel capabilities,
and host QEMU version (we never took care of keeping guest ABI with
"-cpu host"). If migration did work, it was never supposed to.