On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:36:34PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 14:41:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > So either we need to define all existing CPU models in all their
> > variants used for various machine types and have a mapping between
> > (model without a version, machine type) to a specific version of the
> > model (which may be quite hard) or we need to be able to distinguish
> > between an existing domain and a new domain with no CPU model version.
> > While host-model and host-passthrough CPU modes are easy because they
> > are designed to change everytime a domain starts (which means we don't
> > need to be able to distinguish between existing and new domains), custom
> > CPU mode are tricky. Currently, the only at least a bit reasonable thing
> > which came to my mind is to have a new CPU mode, but it still seems
> > awkward so please share your ideas if you have any.
>
> Introducing a new CPU mode feels pretty unpleasant to me.
>
> Although it will certainly be tedious work, getting details of all the
> CPU variants for historical machine types should be doable I think.
Yeah, I also prefer this variant but I was kind of hoping someone would
come up with a bright idea which would safe me from all the work :-P
Allow me to introduce you to perl and regexes :-P
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|