On 21.12.2010, at 17:56, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 12/21/2010 10:07 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> "Richard W.M. Jones"<rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:41:03PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> >>>> Like this? >>>> >>>> upstream qemu | default |-enable-kvm >>>> ----------------+-----------+----------- >>>> KVM available | disabled | enabled >>>> KVM unavailable | disabled | fail >>>> >>>> qemu-kvm | default |-enable-kvm| -no-kvm >>>> ----------------+-----------+-----------+----------- >>>> KVM available | enabled* | enabled | disabled >>>> KVM unavailable | disabled | fail | disabled >>>> >>>> * differs from upstream >>>> >>> libguestfs wants "best effort" behaviour, and libvirt wants "KVM or die" >>> behaviour. >>> >> For what it's worth, default gives you exactly that with qemu-kvm. >> Maybe that's good enough, on the theory that if you have KVM, you most >> likely have libguestfs using qemu-kvm. >> >> >>> Avi, can you comment on whether just opening /dev/kvm O_RDWR is a >>> reasonable way to detect if KVM is available? >>> >>> Markus, any idea when we might get the -accel option appearing in >>> released versions of qemu/KVM? >>> >> No idea. Anthony? >> > > I see no problem with 0.15 if someone cooks up a patch. Didn't Anthony do one? What happened to the Xen patch set anyways? :) Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
