On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 09:34:08 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 25.07.2018 01:02, Collin Walling wrote:
> Thanks for expanding on what the "max" model name is suppose to be. I
wonder if a
> s/"qemu"/"max" in QEMU would suffice (I'm taking a shot in
the dark here.)
Nope, it dynamically has to map to qemu/host depending on the
accelerator. But it also has to be a valid QOM object ("max-s390x-cpu").
>
> @Connie, @David, you both are far more knowledgeable in this area than I am. What
> do either of you suggest for moving forward with this? Should we forward this
> discussion on qemu-devel?
>
I can have a look if nobody else wants to tackle it.
I'll gladly merge a patch :)
This is probably 3.1 material, so libvirt will need compat handling for
it, I guess.