From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37537) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSJBv-00028W-Mq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 04:28:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSJBr-0000pM-O7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 04:28:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54296) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSJBr-0000oX-EJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 04:28:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 09:28:05 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20170704082805.GA3135@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" References: <1499099693-22903-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1499099693-22903-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1499099693-22903-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/22] configure: factor out list of supported Xen/KVM/HAX targets List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, rth@twiddle.net, thuth@redhat.com, anthony.xu@intel.com, a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com, yang.zhong@intel.com On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 06:34:32PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > This will be useful when the functions are called, early in the configure > process, to filter out targets that do not support hardware acceleration. > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > --- > configure | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/configure b/configure > index c571ad1..0f14e79 100755 > --- a/configure > +++ b/configure > @@ -163,6 +163,50 @@ have_backend () { > echo "$trace_backends" | grep "$1" >/dev/null > } > > +glob() { > + eval test -z '"${1#'"$2"'}"' > +} > + > +supported_hax_target() { > + test "$hax" = "yes" || return 1 > + glob "$1" "*-softmmu" || return 1 > + case "${1%-softmmu}" in > + i386|x86_64) > + return 0 > + ;; > + esac > + return 1 > +} > + > +supported_kvm_target() { > + test "$kvm" = "yes" || return 1 > + glob "$1" "*-softmmu" || return 1 > + case "${1%-softmmu}:$cpu" in > + arm:arm | aarch64:aarch64 | \ > + i386:i386 | i386:x86_64 | i386:x32 | \ > + x86_64:i386 | x86_64:x86_64 | x86_64:x32 | \ IIUC, 'x86_64:i386' is claiming that you can run x86_64 KVM guests on an i386 host. I thought that was impossible, only 32-on-64 being allowed not 64-on-32. > + mips:mips | mipsel:mips | \ > + ppc:ppc | ppcemb:ppc | ppc64:ppc | \ > + ppc:ppc64 | ppcemb:ppc64 | ppc64:ppc64 | \ Same question here with ppc64:ppc suggesting you can run 64-bit guest with KVM on a 32-bit host ? > + s390x:s390x) > + return 0 > + ;; > + esac > + return 1 > +} > + > +supported_xen_target() { > + test "$xen" = "yes" || return 1 > + glob "$1" "*-softmmu" || return 1 > + case "${1%-softmmu}:$cpu" in > + arm:arm | aarch64:aarch64 | \ > + i386:i386 | i386:x86_64 | x86_64:i386 | x86_64:x86_64) This again is claiming support for 64-bit guests with Xen on a 32-bit host, which AFAIK is impossible. > + return 0 > + ;; > + esac > + return 1 > +} Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|