On 2012-01-25 13:15, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/25/2012 02:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>>> Would a machine option >>>> "kvm_shadow_memory=n" be desirable? >>> >>> Not sure, this is a host option, not a guest option. Machine options >>> should be guest-visible. >> >> machine options are not guest visible. Basically, this options falls >> into the same category as kernel_irqchip. > > They should be. We should work hard to separate the guest ABI from > everything else. Same as kvm-apic appearing in the qdev name. Which is NOT guest visible. > >> Do we have alternatives? A top-level command line options is surely none. > > -kvm shadow-memory=n,... > > -accel kvm,shadow-memory=n,... Both are unneeded additional options. We already have -machine option=value. We just need to enable machines like KVM-based ones to append their private ones to the common set. That way you will get a proper error report when specifying a meaningless combination like "accel=tcg,kernel_irqchip=on". Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
