On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:43:35PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:04:26AM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: [...] > > > > The list of known CPU feature > > > > + names (e.g. 'vmx', 'cmt', et cetera) can be found in the same > > > > + file as CPU models -- <code>cpu_map.xml</code>. For example, > > > > + to explicitly specify the 'pcid' feature with Intel IvyBridge > > > > + CPU model: > > > > > > Another paragraph above already says "The list of known feature > > > names can be found in the same file as CPU models". If you think the > > > existing paragraph is not enough, I suggest rewriting it so the > > > document won't repeat exactly the same thing. > > > > True. How about this rewrite: > > > > "Once you choose a feature (e.g. 'pcid') from the `cpu_map.xml`, to > > specify it explicitly with the Intel IvyBridge CPU model [...]" > > "Once you choose a feature (e.g. 'pcid') from the `cpu_map.xml`" > doesn't seem to convey any additional information that wasn't > mentioned before. What about just "For example, to explicitly > specify the 'pcid' feature with Intel IvyBridge CPU model:"? I was just trying to be explicit. But yours sound clearer too -- so can update to yours. > > > > I'll consider whether to also add a note that before specifying extra > > CPU feature flags, one should check if the named CPU models provided by > > libvirt already include the said flags. > > Maybe this would be too much information. It's harmless to set a feature > explicitly to 'require' if the CPU model already contains the feature. Okay, can remove it. (I was just operating under the principle of "explicit is better than implicit".) Thanks for the review. -- /kashyap -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
