From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove hardcoded xen-platform device initialization Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:57:55 -0400 Message-ID: <51BB2F73.70902__13727.4860557683$1371221997$gmane$org@redhat.com> References: <1371117054-5694-1-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> <1371145442.6955.64.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <51BA0943.7050705@redhat.com> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD00394C5@LONPEX01CL01.citrite.net> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD0039637@LONPEX01CL01.citrite.net> <51BB1FB4.1030006@redhat.com> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD0039B3F@LONPEX01CL01.citrite.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD0039B3F@LONPEX01CL01.citrite.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Paul Durrant Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Il 14/06/2013 10:11, Paul Durrant ha scritto: > I think we're still going to need -M xenpv, I think; it's quite > distinct from pc. Of course! Even more: "-M xenpv" should be reused on ARM. > I guess we could use -M pc for HVM and gate the > accel code as you suggest but, if that's the way we're going, it > would seem more logical just to ditch the accel code for xenpv > completely (assuming we can do all we need from the machine init) and > then use -M pc -accel=xen for HVM guests going forward. There is common code between pv and fv, and that one definitely belongs in xen_init. Most fv-only code probably should be in pc_init. The rest should move to xen_init though, because it would apply just as well for example to Q35. It's a bit ugly to have fv-only code there, but it's better than having a Xen-specific machine type. Xen/KVM/TCG should be as similar as possible at the QEMU level, any difference should be handled in the toolstack. > But that does > rather screw up my autodiscovery plans because I would not know, for > a given qemu binary, which machine type to use. There's no need for that. 4.4 can just use "-M pc" unconditionally, <=4.3 will just use "-M xenfv" unconditionally. > If I create a new > xenfv-2.0 machine type though I *can* do auto discovery... in which > case do we need the -accel=xen option at all? Yes. Please try not do things differently from other accelerators. Paolo