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 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list