From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43106) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpsRg-0002DX-9J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:46:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpsRY-00021t-N6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:45:56 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59808) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpsRY-00021U-GZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:45:48 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E7FB5F7AE for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 08:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:45:43 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20170907084543.GC4461@dhcp-200-186.str.redhat.com> References: <20170906094927.22376-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20170906132936.7cf49b24.cohuck@redhat.com> <20170907081131.GB4461@dhcp-200-186.str.redhat.com> <7eb83905-41cd-fa32-226c-0849d42bed04@redhat.com> <20170907102538.15ed780d.cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170907102538.15ed780d.cohuck@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] accel: default to an actually available accelerator List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lvivier@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com Am 07.09.2017 um 10:25 hat Cornelia Huck geschrieben: > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:14:27 +0200 > Thomas Huth wrote: > > > On 07.09.2017 10:11, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > [...] > > > But the real reason why I'm replying: Should we add changing the default > > > to "kvm:tcg" to the list of planned 3.0 changes? I am part of the group > > > that intentionally uses TCG occasionally, but I think the majority of > > > users wants to use KVM (or whatever the fastest option is on their > > > system) whenever it is available. > > > > If you consider how often people are getting this wrong (they want to > > use KVM but end up with TCG in the first try), I think that's a good idea. > > Agreed. > > I'm wondering what that means for our tests, though. Some of them work > slightly different under tcg or kvm (cf. iotest 186, as referenced in > the original mail), and sometimes you'll probably explicitly want to > exercise tcg. That does not speak against the change, but we probably > need to look at what we want in more detail. This is a bug in test 186, and probably 172, too. Normally, we use the options from ./common: export QEMU_OPTIONS="-nodefaults -machine accel=qtest" However, these two test cases overwrite QEMU_OPTIONS and neglect to add a '-machine accel=qtest' option manually. Kevin