From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (dan.rpsys.net [93.97.175.187]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77D96CA7B for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:10:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r8PL9w7L017913; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:09:58 +0100 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dan.rpsys.net Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id K7J_EJdPU0lA; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:09:58 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] (rpvlan0 [192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r8PL9pd8017909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:09:53 +0100 Message-ID: <1380143387.18603.347.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Darren Hart Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:09:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1380143117.4035.144.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1380142751.18603.344.camel@ted> <1380143117.4035.144.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core Subject: Re: [PATCH] runqemu: Use correct kvm CPU options for qemux86* with kvm X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:10:10 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 14:05 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 21:59 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > The existing -cpu host option caused kernel panics when people attempted to use > > the kvm option. After research and discussion, the best options appear to > > be the kvm32/kvm64 cpu types so lets use these instead. These resolve > > the kernel issues for me. > > > > [YOCTO #3908] > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie > > Makes a lot of sense to me: > > Acked-by: Darren Hart > > > --- > > diff --git a/scripts/runqemu b/scripts/runqemu > > index efab1a2..12c58d9 100755 > > --- a/scripts/runqemu > > +++ b/scripts/runqemu > > @@ -265,7 +265,11 @@ if [ "x$KVM_ENABLED" = "xyes" ]; then > > exit 1; > > fi > > if [ -w /dev/kvm -a -r /dev/kvm ]; then > > - SCRIPT_QEMU_OPT="$SCRIPT_QEMU_OPT -enable-kvm -cpu host" > > + if [ "x$MACHINE" = "xqemux86" ]; then > > + SCRIPT_QEMU_OPT="$SCRIPT_QEMU_OPT -enable-kvm -cpu kvm32" > > + elif [ "x$MACHINE" = "xqemux86-64" ]; then > > + SCRIPT_QEMU_OPT="$SCRIPT_QEMU_OPT -enable-kvm -cpu kvm64" > > + fi > > The above is fine, but it does raise the question of dealing with non > oe-core BSPs with runqemu. For instance, there would be value in testing > genericx86 and genericx86_64 in the same way. We can deal with that > separately though I think as this solves an immediate problem and > doesn't make it any worse for the case I mention. There is an explicit check for qemux86* just above this block so whilst I like the idea, its something for another patch and likely 1.6 material. Could be worth an enhancement bug though. Cheers, Richard