Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I like this idea but I have some suggestions about the general approach.
> I think instead of defining another machine type, it would be better to
> just have a command line option like -cpuid that took a comma separate
> string of features with "all" meaning all features t
Paul Brook wrote:
I think qemu-cvs has a -cpu option for non-x86 which could be used for
this. Agree machine types are the wrong approach.
Yep, machine types are already used to switch between a different concept
so using the new -cpu option would make sense. Could perhaps extend the
sy
> > I think qemu-cvs has a -cpu option for non-x86 which could be used for
> > this. Agree machine types are the wrong approach.
>
> Yep, machine types are already used to switch between a different concept
> so using the new -cpu option would make sense. Could perhaps extend the
> syntax so that
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 10:34:45PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:45 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It's a pity not to use a host CPU feature if it is available. This patch
> >> exposes host CPU features to guests. It allows
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:45 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
It's a pity not to use a host CPU feature if it is available. This patch
exposes host CPU features to guests. It allows fine-tuning the presented
features from the command-line.
The code could use some se
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:45 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's a pity not to use a host CPU feature if it is available. This patch
> exposes host CPU features to guests. It allows fine-tuning the presented
> features from the command-line.
>
> The code could use some serious clean ups
