On 21/05/13 14:04, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:55:27PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: >>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:39:53AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>>> QEMU has the notion of a default machine for each target, and that is >>>> what libvirt uses if the user hasn't specified a machine. It is not >>>> libvirt's job to override QEMU's notion of the default machine here, >>>> so if the 'mac99' machine type isn't suitable as the default either >>>> QEMU needs to change that for the ppc target, or the user needs to >>>> explicitly specify their desired machine type. >>> >>> We are getting the default changed to 'pseries', at least for cases >>> where pseries support is compiled in, which isn't necessarily >>> always. That will of course not satisfy the Freescale guys. >>> >>> I think libvirt needs some more sensible way to ask qemu what its >>> capabilities are. Currently it has no way to ask qemu "what machines >>> can you emulate with kvm acceleration?" If the user has asked for a >>> KVM domain then the default machine should be one that can be provided >>> by KVM. At present it isn't, on PowerPC. >> >> If QEMU can provide more intelligent info in this respect, then >> libvirt can use it. We're doing the best we can with picking >> defaults given the info QEMU currently provides us. > > We've talked in the past about having an accelerator specific machine > default. I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and would > solve the problem for ARM and for PPC. If we get such thing, then virtio-ccw might also be the right default for kvm on s390. Christian -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list