Re: Priority of -accel

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 14/01/20 09:59, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On 13/01/20 17:17, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Perfect opportunity to change the default to something more useful.
>>
>> I am not sure acutally if it's that more useful, now that we have
>> sanctioned qemu-kvm as the fast alternative.
> 
> If there is a fast alternative, why ship the slow one?

I find it more consistent that qemu-system-* is doing emulation (and can
usually be ignored) and qemu-kvm is doing virtualization.  It's more
intuitive to launch qemu-system-x86_64 than "qemu-kvm --no-kvm".

What we could do is automatically install a qemu-kvm binary for the
"most suitable" target that has KVM enabled (i.e. for
qemu-system-x86_64, not qemu-system-i386) instead of leaving it to distros.

Paolo

> No matter what we do, somebody is going to be confused.  How to resolve
> such a conundrum?  Utilitarian philosophy teaches us to pursue the
> greatest confusion of the greatest numbers.  I think not using x86
> hardware virtualization by default has been admirably successful there.