From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC] QEMU KVM target Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:19:36 +0200 Message-ID: <45DAA108.8000501@qumranet.com> References: <45DA4A16.4050804@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: In-Reply-To: <45DA4A16.4050804-rdkfGonbjUSkNkDKm+mE6A@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Anthony Liguori wrote: > Howdy, > > Here's a tiny patch that adds a i386-kvm target. The main difference > between the i386-kvm and i386-softmmu target is that the -kvm target > does not have any of the dyngen infrastructure. This means that it > will build with gcc-4. I know you can do --cc=gcc to use gcc-4 but > quite a few versions of gcc-4 have trouble with compiling dyngen. > > I also suspect this may prove useful down the road. What do other > people think? I'm not terribly tied to the i386-kvm name for what > it's worth. > That kills the -no-kvm switch, which allows a single binary to be used both with and without kvm. Or do you think both target-i386+kvm and target-kvm ought to be kept? My thinking about qemu integration is that kqemu/kvm code needs to be abstracted into an API to reduce the #ifdefing in qemu, and that API could call kqemu or kvm as appropriate. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV