Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we want -kvm-shadow-memory semantics?

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2012-01-25 13:15, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/25/2012 02:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would a machine option
>>>> "kvm_shadow_memory=n" be desirable?
>>>
>>> Not sure, this is a host option, not a guest option.  Machine options
>>> should be guest-visible.
>>
>> machine options are not guest visible. Basically, this options falls
>> into the same category as kernel_irqchip.
> 
> They should be.  We should work hard to separate the guest ABI from
> everything else.  Same as kvm-apic appearing in the qdev name.

Which is NOT guest visible.

> 
>> Do we have alternatives? A top-level command line options is surely none.
> 
>   -kvm shadow-memory=n,...
> 
>   -accel kvm,shadow-memory=n,...

Both are unneeded additional options.

We already have -machine option=value. We just need to enable machines
like KVM-based ones to append their private ones to the common set. That
way you will get a proper error report when specifying a meaningless
combination like "accel=tcg,kernel_irqchip=on".

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux