On 10 October 2018 at 16:47, Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com> wrote: > To make sure we're on the same page, we're still going to have default > machine types, based on the arch, for those targets that don't provide > one (aarch64 is one example). Right?
Does it make sense to define a default? The reason arm doesn't specify a default machine type is because you can't just run any old guest on any old machine type. You need to know "this guest image will run on machine type X", and run it on machine type X. This is like knowing you need to run a test on x86 PC and not on PPC spapr. Would it make more sense for each test to specify which machine types it can work on? thanks -- PMM
