On 14.08.2013, at 20:11, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 14 August 2013 18:31, Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> So why not have a vm ioctl to fetch the "best match" vcpu type? > > I don't object to that particularly, but > (a) we're not going to use the extra flexibility because > the only thing we'll do is just bounce the answer > back at the kernel It makes the API more robust to abuse. I think that's a good thing. > (b) it requires an actual new ioctl rather than just > defining another supported value for the existing one Yup :). > (c) the code is less neat if you have to do "ask kernel > for best-match, if it has it use it otherwise fall > back to [small list of legacy cpus]" than if you > just have "try best-match/legacy1/legacy2/legacy3". I don't understand this point. Could you please elaborate? Alex _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
