On 05/31/2011 12:15 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 05/31/2011 10:58 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
But qemu will complain about an option it can't parse.
The presence of -enable-nesting is inferred from the help text.
Okay, so it can be safely dropped.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many argumen
On 05/31/2011 10:58 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
But qemu will complain about an option it can't parse.
The presence of -enable-nesting is inferred from the help text.
Paolo
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 04:58:16AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/31/2011 11:44 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > I think it's safe to drop -enable-nesting immediately. Dan, does
> > > libvirt make use of it?
> >
> > Yes, but it should be safe to drop it. Currently, if the user specifies
> >
On 05/31/2011 11:44 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> I think it's safe to drop -enable-nesting immediately. Dan, does
> libvirt make use of it?
Yes, but it should be safe to drop it. Currently, if the user specifies
a CPU with the 'svm' flag present in libvirt guest XML, then we will
pass args
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 06:19:14PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/30/2011 06:15 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >On 2011-05-30 17:10, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:04:02AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> On 2011-05-30 16:38, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011, Jan Ki
On 2011-05-30 17:16, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote about "Re: drop -enable-nesting":
>>> "-enable-nesting" could remain as a synonym for enabling either VMX or SVM
>>> in the guest, depending on what was available in the host (because KVM now
>>> supports both nested
On 2011-05-30 17:27, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-05-30 17:19, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> I think it's safe to drop -enable-nesting immediately. Dan, does
>> libvirt make use of it?
>
> I'm currently checking with some customer who played with Proxmox and
> nesting if that stack was aware of the switch
On 2011-05-30 17:19, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/30/2011 06:15 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-05-30 17:10, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:04:02AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-05-30 16:38, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote about "drop -
On 05/30/2011 06:15 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-05-30 17:10, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:04:02AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-05-30 16:38, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote about "drop -enable-nesting (was: [PATCH
3/7] cpu model bug
On Mon, May 30, 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote about "Re: drop -enable-nesting":
> > "-enable-nesting" could remain as a synonym for enabling either VMX or SVM
> > in the guest, depending on what was available in the host (because KVM now
> > supports both nested SVM and nested VMX, but not SVM-on-VMX or v
On 2011-05-30 17:10, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:04:02AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-05-30 16:38, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote about "drop -enable-nesting (was:
>>> [PATCH 3/7] cpu model bug fixes and definition corrections...)":
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:04:02AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-05-30 16:38, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote about "drop -enable-nesting (was:
> > [PATCH 3/7] cpu model bug fixes and definition corrections...)":
> >> On 2011-05-30 10:18, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
>
On 2011-05-30 16:38, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote about "drop -enable-nesting (was:
> [PATCH 3/7] cpu model bug fixes and definition corrections...)":
>> On 2011-05-30 10:18, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 04:39:13AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>
On Mon, May 30, 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote about "drop -enable-nesting (was: [PATCH
3/7] cpu model bug fixes and definition corrections...)":
> On 2011-05-30 10:18, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 04:39:13AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >> Jצrg, how to deal with -enable-nesting in
On 2011-05-30 10:18, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 04:39:13AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Jörg, how to deal with -enable-nesting in qemu-kvm to align behavior
>> with upstream?
>
> My personal preference is to just remove it. In upstream-qemu it is
> enabled/disabled by +/-svm.
15 matches
Mail list logo