On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:09:28PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 16:53:37 +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 02:43:23PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 13:08:51 +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:39:23AM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > tools/virsh.pod | 8 +++++++-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > +Moreover, for some architectures libvirt does not know any CPU models and
> > > > > +the usable CPU models are only limited by the hypervisor.
> > > >
> > > > Wonder if it is worth adding a small example for the above.
> > >
> > > An example for what exactly?
> >
> > I meant an example of a usable CPU model that libvirt doesn't know for
> > the said architecture(s). Maybe it's not worth it; not quite sure.
>
> The usable models are all models accepted by hypervisor for that
> architecture. So, e.g., libvirt won't list any CPU model for aarch64
> when you call "virsh cpu-models aarch64", it will just print "all CPU
> models are accepted" and "virsh domcapabilities --arch aarch64" will
> show a very long list of CPU models libvirt would actually accept.
> Similarly for s390x.
Ah, that is clearer; thank you. So if you think it is worth it, maybe
adjust your doc patch to a variant of the following:
Moreover, for some architectures libvirt does not know any CPU
models and the usable CPU models are only limited by the hypervisor
(e.g. to enumerate a list of acceptable CPU models for AArch64, use
`virsh domcapabilities --arch aarch64`; likewise for 's390x').
--
/kashyap
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
