On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 21:13:54 +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 20:21:19 +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:29:50 +0100 > > Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > We consume machine types as opaque strings, we don't parse them and thus > we don't have any ordering on them. Without this telling what <= 4.0 > means is impossible. And I don't think we should start doing it, and > especially not for limiting this hack as it would be limiting a hack > with another one. > > A reasonable solution would be if we could tell which machine types need > (or perhaps don't need) such treatment by probing QEMU for available > machine types. Well this has two implications: 1) qemu telling us would be detectable, thus no need to check for x-something 2) if qemu can tell us when to use it, it's very probable that at that point it can do the correct thing itself, not requiring anything from us
