[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU 3.0 ?

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU 3.0 ?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 14:27:18 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0

On 23/11/2017 14:13, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 14:02:12 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 23/11/2017 13:39, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> I'm wondering how many people want to run e.g. x86_64-on-x86_64
>>> _without_ using an available kvm (and I expect those people to
>>> explicitly specify tcg).  
>> I disagree.  I expect them to be "power users" enough to know that
>> qemu-system-x86_64 defaults to TCG.
> Do we have any idea (from questions, bugzillas, ...) about which kind
> of people actually do that?
> [Coming from s390x, where tcg cannot run most current distros, I'm
> lacking data.]

For example Linux or other OS developers that want to test x86 features
not in any shipping processor.  (See for example 5-level page tables
that were recently contributed to QEMU).

>> In theory I don't like it either (and I hadn't thought about it until
>> today).  In practice, qemu-kvm is not going away from
>> blogs/scripts/tutorials in a decade, so we might as well embrace it...
> One issue I see is that this naming convention only works with
> same-architecture accelerators. You can't have a qemu-tcg as you don't
> know which architecture is supposed to be emulated. (Or if you use
> qemu-tcg as a shorthand for same-architecture emulation, you still have
> the long names for anything else, which is even more confusing.)

Right, there would be no qemu-tcg, that would keep qemu-system-ARCH.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]