On 12 April 2012 17:02, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 04/12/2012 10:52 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Why would you design an infrastructure that lets you coherently bundle >> together a collection of devices and have configurable properties on >> that bundle as well as on the devices, and then *not* use it for machines? > > > The machine concept in QEMU is "broken" IMHO. If we want to maintain > compatibility (and we do), we need to let machines act as a bridge. > > Here's how I expect the PC to work: > > qemu --no-machine -readconfig my-system.cfg > > [device "root"] > driver=i440fx > cpu[0]=cpu0 > slot[3]=e1000 > memory=2G > biosname=bios.bin > > [device "cpu0"] > driver=qemu64 > > [device "e1000"] > bus=/i440fx > netdev=eth0 > > [netdev "eth0"] > type=tap
Isn't this just defining a machine in a config file without naming it? > There is no real need to have a '-machine' option and no need to model a > machine. This doesn't make sense to me. We need a -machine option because it's the major way for the user to say what kind of model they want. We need to model machines because without that we just have a pile of useless devices. > -M pc ends up being a compatibility bridge which takes a bunch of options > that really do lots of different things (like choosing network device > models). I see machines as a function that takes a QemuOpts and then does > the equivalent of the above. -- PMM
