On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:14:17AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:52:27PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
[...]
> > I'm not sure what would be the best way to encode two types of
> > information, though:
> >
> > * Fallback/alternatives info, e.g.: "It makes sense to use
> > Haswell-{3.0,2.12,2.5,...} if Haswell-3.1 is not runnable and the
> > user asked for Haswell".
> >
> > * Ordering/preference info, e.g.: "Haswell-3.1 is better than
> > Haswell-3.0, prefer the latter"
>
> The version number of course gives an ordering, but we generally
> tell people not to assume version is numeric. We could report
> an explicit "priority" in some manner against each.
Makes sense. "priority" could be included on
query-cpu-definitions to help software choose the best
alternative, and "version" could be just an opaque string that
libvirt needs to save after expanding a CPU model.
--
Eduardo
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
