|
From: | Gerd Hoffmann |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Add definitions for current cpu models.. |
Date: | Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:26:49 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 |
On 01/25/10 23:35, Dor Laor wrote:
On 01/25/2010 04:21 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:Another way to look at this is that implementing a somewhat arbitrary policy within QEMU's .c files is something we should try to avoid. Implementing arbitrary policy in our default config file is a fine thing to do. Default configs are suggested configurations that are modifiable by a user. Something baked into QEMU is something that ought to work for
>
If we get the models right, users and mgmt stacks won't need to define them. It seems like almost impossible task for us, mgmt stack/users won't do a better job, the opposite I guess. The configs are great, I have no argument against them, my case is that if we can pin down some definitions, its better live in the code, like the above models. It might even help to get the same cpus across the various vendors, otherwise we might end up with IBM's core2duo, RH's core2duo, Suse's,..
I agree. When looking at this thread and config file idea it feels a bit like "we have a hard time to agree on some sensible default cpu types, so lets make this configurable so we don't have to". Which is a bad thing IMHO.
cheers, Gerd
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |