Il 27/05/2013 14:09, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 08:25:49AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 25/05/2013 03:21, Bandan Das ha scritto: >>> There is one user-visible effect: "-cpu ...,enforce" will stop failing >>> because of missing KVM support for CPUID_EXT_MONITOR. But that's exactly >>> the point: there's no point in having CPU model definitions that would >>> never work as-is with neither TCG or KVM. This patch is changing the >>> meaning of (e.g.) "-machine ...,accel=kvm -cpu Opteron_G3" to match what >>> was already happening in practice. >> >> But then -cpu Opteron_G3 does not match a "real" Opteron G3. Is it >> worth it? > > No models match a "real" CPU this way, because neither TCG or KVM > support all features supported by a real CPU. I ask the opposite > question: is it worth maintaining an "accurate" CPU model definition > that would never work without feature-bit tweaking in the command-line?
It would work with TCG. Changing TCG to KVM should not change hardware if you use "-cpu ...,enforce", so it is right that it fails when starting with KVM. Paolo
