From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KqDbV-0006ND-4e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:08:25 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KqDbU-0006Lw-9Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:08:24 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44237 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KqDbT-0006LN-JV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:08:23 -0400 Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.157]:21983) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KqDbT-0005xw-H7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:08:23 -0400 Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so609865ywa.82 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5d6222a80810151408k7df078fekccadaf5c9922c3d6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:08:20 -0200 From: "Glauber Costa" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 13/21] provide --accel option In-Reply-To: <48F65445.4050305@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1224107718-19128-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1224107718-19128-14-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <48F65445.4050305@us.ibm.com> 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 Cc: jan.kiszka@siemens.com, Glauber Costa , jes@sgi.com, avi@qumranet.com, dmitry.baryshkov@siemens.com On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Glauber Costa wrote: >> >> The --accel option will provide us the ability of defining which >> accelerator to pick at run time. It has the advantage of not using >> the not-well-accepted constructor directives, and also, of stabilishing >> a way to define priorities among accelerators. >> >> The ones registered first, are tried first. >> > > Logically speaking, kqemu should be two accelerators, right? -accel kqemu > and -accel kqemu-kernel? They should share most of the same obviously. > > That would eliminate the need for the various kqemu options. Maybe, but it seems to me at first that it would require touching kqemu a little bit heavily. A quick hack would be accept the two options, only difference being we set the kemu_enabled variable in there. Are you okay with this path ? > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > > > -- Glauber Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."