Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] qemu-kvm: Switch to upstream -enable-kvm semantics

[Alexander Graf]

On 21.12.2010, at 17:56, Anthony Liguori wrote:

> On 12/21/2010 10:07 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> "Richard W.M. Jones"<address@hidden>  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