On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:43:56 +0800, Liu Yiding wrote: > Hi Jiri > > On 8/31/22 20:30, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 09:22:16 +0000, Liu Yiding wrote: > >> Add A64FX as a supported cpu model. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Liu Yiding <liuyd.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> src/cpu_map/arm_A64FX.xml | 6 ++++++ > >> src/cpu_map/arm_vendors.xml | 1 + > >> src/cpu_map/index.xml | 3 +++ > >> src/cpu_map/meson.build | 1 + > >> 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 src/cpu_map/arm_A64FX.xml > > > > CPU detection for ARM is a bit awkward and not very useful in practice. > > It will (in some cases) report the host CPU in host capabilities, but > > that's it. The CPU from host capabilities cannot really be used in > > general for specifying a guest CPU in domain XML and it would not even > > make a lot of sense as I believe the only really supported CPU for KVM > > is "host" (mode="host-passthrough" in domain XML). > > > > Thanks for your detailed explanation. :) > > > I'm not saying the patch is wrong, I'm just trying to make sure you > > don't expect something more from implementing this patch. > > > > Yes, I just want to fix the err logging. We have a tp-libvirt case that > always fails with this err logging... > > As your explanations, It's ok for me to ignore this patch as it does a > little effect. :) There's no reason for ignoring the patch completely. We support detecting CPUs from other vendors as they sent patches so why should Fujitsu be different. Jirka
