Re: [libvirt] CPU model versioning separate from machine type versioning ?
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:14:17AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:52:27PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
[...]
> I'm not sure what would be the best way to encode two types
of
> information, though:
>
> * Fallback/alternatives info, e.g.: "It makes sense to use
> Haswell-{3.0,2.12,2.5,...} if Haswell-3.1 is not runnable and the
> user asked for Haswell".
>
> * Ordering/preference info, e.g.: "Haswell-3.1 is better than
> Haswell-3.0, prefer the latter"
The version number of course gives an ordering, but we generally
tell people not to assume version is numeric. We could report
an explicit "priority" in some manner against each.
Makes sense. "priority" could be included on
query-cpu-definitions to help software choose the best
alternative, and "version" could be just an opaque string that
libvirt needs to save after expanding a CPU model.
--
Eduardo