From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Przywara Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce kvm64 CPU Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:23:05 +0200 Message-ID: <4A8EADC9.3090106@amd.com> References: <1250804057-29681-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@amd.com> <20090821133330.GB4436@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avi@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Jamie Lokier Return-path: Received: from tx2ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.15]:53829 "EHLO TX2EHSOBE009.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755649AbZHUOXa (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:23:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090821133330.GB4436@shareable.org> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jamie Lokier wrote: > Andre Przywara wrote: >> In addition to the TCG based qemu64 type let's introduce a kvm64 CPU type, >> which is the least common denominator of all KVM-capable x86-CPUs >> (based on Intel Pentium 4 Prescott). It can be used as a base type >> for migration. > > The idea is nice and the name is right, but the description is wrong. > > It obviously isn't the least common denominator of all KVM-capable > x86-CPUs, as my KVM-capable Core Duo (32-bit) cannot run it. > A kvm32 would be nice for symmetry. Well, thats why I named it kvm_64_. If you happen to stuck with 32bit (pity you!) then I agree that a kvm32 would be nice to have. Will think about it... Regards, Andre. -- Andre Przywara AMD-OSRC (Dresden) Tel: x29712