From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L0olu-0000LG-OB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:50:58 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L0olt-0000L4-C9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:50:57 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57374 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L0olt-0000L1-6g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:50:57 -0500 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:44247) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L0ols-0002YE-LS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:50:56 -0500 Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L0olo-00010d-Qf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:50:52 +0000 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:50:52 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Add "info capabilities" monitor command Message-ID: <20081114025052.GG2055@shareable.org> References: <1226594763-2304-1-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > (qemu) info capabilities > [qemu] > accel= > arch=sparc I'm thinking that a qemu which supports multiple target architectures becomes increasingly feasible and likely, especially for system emulation. Therefore, [qemu] should have an "archs" property, and there should be separate "[arch-sparc]" headers, like this: [qemu] archs=sparc [arch] name=sparc cpu=Fujitsu MB86900,Fujitsu MB86904,Fujitsu MB86907,LSI L64811,Cypress CY7C601,Cypress CY7C611,TI SuperSparc II,TI MicroSparc I,TI MicroSparc II,TI MicroSparc IIep,TI SuperSparc 40,TI SuperSparc 50,TI SuperSparc 51,TI SuperSparc 60,TI SuperSparc 61,Ross RT625,Ross RT620,BIT B5010,Matsushita MN10501,Weitek W8601,LEON2,LEON3 etc... > [machine] > name=SS-5 > max_cpus=1 > nic_models= This would be prettier as [machine:SS5] or [machine SS5] imho. > [machine] > name=Voyager > max_cpus=0 > nic_models= Crumbs, zero CPUs? By the way, is there a min_cpus? And does cpus mean cores or chips? > drive_cache=off,none,writethrough,writeback Do we need "off" and "none" here? (Side issue: I think these names are misleading because they hide the fact that "none" provides less underlying data integrity than "writethrough", due to O_DIRECT vs. O_DSYNC quirks. Sometimes you want _both_ O_DIRECT and O_DSYNC, as they can be combined, and the combination has a different meaning than O_DIRECT alone on some OSes and hardware, including MS Windows. So the options should be "none,direct,writethrough,writeback"). -- Jamie