On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:06:20AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 25 June 2015 at 09:00, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Of course, KVM can deny an unsupported configuration, but I am wondering > > if we really think anybody will care about the 'model such specific > > hardware' aspect with KVM, or if we should only consider the 'I want a > > VM with x VCPUs' scenario, in which case the second option below seems > > simpler to me. > > I agree it's not very likely anybody cares about the specific cluster > topology. However if we don't want to support arbitrary topologies > then QEMU is going to end up in the business of editing the user > supplied device tree blob to make its cpu definitions match up with > whatever the kernel provides, which could be pretty tedious. > I see, then you can't easily contruct a machine and a DT in one go before talking to KVM. Oh well, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
