On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 09:39:39AM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: > On 11/07/2017 17:47, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 11/07/2017 16:42, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > > Concerning QEMU, could we maybe simply emit a warning a la > > > > > > > > > > "you did not specify a machine type with the -M option, so you are > > > > > currently running the the 'pc' machine type. Please note that > > > > > future > > > > > versions of QEMU might use the 'q35' machine type instead. If you > > > > > require the 'pc' machine type for your setting, then please specify > > > > > it with the -M option." > > > > Warnings tend to get ignored until things are actually break, so I > > > > don't think this helps much. I think simply not having a default > > > > machine type (as already suggested elsewhere in this thread) is the > > > > best way to deal with this. > > > I would absolutely hate this. One of the nice things about qemu has > > > always been that 'qemu disk.img' is enough to start a simple VM. You > > > only need to touch any other options for things you care about. I > > > wouldn't want to give this up. > > > > I agree. Don't change anything, leave "-M pc" aside, and let libosinfo > > pick q35 for newer guests. > > > > Hi Paolo, > > While I do think it would be a good step moving forward, I am not > convinced is "enough" to get more users using it. More so, a low > level bug in upper layers (e.g. Open stack) will lead to difficulty > to debug and result in the same "The machine is not steady enough, > it doesn't worth the effort, let's move back to pc", or even > frustration of the people that really need Q35. I guess not being enough depends on which users we want to affect. People who run QEMU from the command-line don't get a virtio drive or a modern CPU model chosen by default, either. Is the choice of machine-type different? Why? > [...] -- Eduardo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
