From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/21] Remove -cpu-vendor-string Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:16:21 +0300 Message-ID: <49F9A4A5.8010500@redhat.com> References: <1241040038-17183-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <1241040038-17183-15-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <49F9725A.8080908@redhat.com> <49F9A34E.8050506@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:40392 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754597AbZD3NQc (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:16:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <49F9A34E.8050506@us.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> This isn't in upstream QEMU and is of little utility to KVM. It's >>> unlikely >>> to appear in upstream QEMU either. >>> >> >> Since we allow overriding cpuid flags, why not the vendor string? >> It's necessary for cpu passthrough. >> > But we don't allow explicit override of cpuid flags today. We support > choosing CPU models which include vendor id and cpuid flags. I think we allow "-cpu qemu64,-nx" for example. > > Introducing a host CPU model would be acceptable and would more > accurately achieve cpu passthrough. > I agree that "-cpu host[,modifiers]" is desirable. But I don't see why we shouldn't support finegrained control. It's probably better done through a "-cpu blah,-nx,vendorid=foobar" rather than a separate option. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function