On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:49:25 -0400, John Ferlan wrote: ... > > - <dd>No mode specific details are provided yet.</dd> > > + <dd> > > + If <code>host-model</code> is supported by the hypervisor, the > > + <code>mode</code> describes the guest CPU which will be used when > > + starting a domain with <code>host-model</code> CPU. The hypervisor > > + specifics (such as unsupported CPU models or features, machine type, > > + etc.) may be accounted for in this guest CPU specification and thus > > + the CPU can be different from the one shown in host capabilities XML. > > + This is indicated by the <code>fallback</code> attribute of the > > + <code>model</code> sub element: <code>allow</code> means not all > > + specifics were accounted for and thus the CPU a guest will see may > > + be different; <code>forbid</code> says that the CPU a guest will see > > s/says/indicates Fixed. > > + should match this CPU definition. > > + </dd> > > Should this make a reference to > > http://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsCPU > > since that's the allow/forbid and 'host-model' for the domain description? Yes, but it should go to the patch that first introduced the <cpu> element in domain capabilities XML. I'll add it there. > Too bad there weren't any easily crafted 'forbid' examples for test... There's still some work to be done to get there. We'll be asking QEMU what it thinks the host CPU is and then we can finally start to report host-model CPUs which will match what guests will get. So stay tuned :-) Jirka -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list