From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NSXRx-0000kb-Dc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:05:29 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NSXRs-0000fw-PR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:05:29 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55768 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NSXRs-0000fl-J2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:05:24 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55675)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1NSXRs-0008M2-1x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:05:24 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:02:25 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] cpuid problem in upstream qemu with kvm
Message-ID: <20100106150223.GA4001@redhat.com>
References: <4B43D4E2.9050102@codemonkey.ws> <4B4402B1.1030605@redhat.com>
	<4B448F36.8030605@codemonkey.ws> <4B449467.4070606@redhat.com>
	<4B4494FC.1080907@codemonkey.ws> <4B449608.7040102@redhat.com>
	<F67360FA-5DDF-41A1-87AA-726D13A87AD5@suse.de>
	<4B4496E9.2030201@redhat.com> <20100106142231.GF2248@redhat.com>
	<4B449EE7.4050401@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B449EE7.4050401@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, John Cooper <john.cooper@redhat.com>, dlaor@redhat.com, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:32:07PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 04:22 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> We can probably default -enable-kvm to -cpu host, as long as we explain
>>> very carefully that if users wish to preserve cpu features across
>>> upgrades, they can't depend on the default.
>>>      
>> Hardware upgrades or software upgrades?
>>    
>
> Yes.

IMO software upgrades should not change anything as long as user uses -M
<machine description>.  CPU flags should be whitelisted in machine
description.

> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function