Am 15.05.2014 15:07, schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:35:01PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: >> On Tue, 06 May 2014 22:29:24 +0200 >> Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Am 06.05.2014 22:19, schrieb Eduardo Habkost: >>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 10:01:11PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2014 11:42:56 -0300 >>>>> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:22:38AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 2 May 2014 11:43:05 -0300 >>>>>>> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:45:03PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:29:28 -0300 >>>>>>>>> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This series allows management code to use object-add on X86CPU subclasses, so it >>>>>>>>> Is there any reason why "device-add" couldn't be used? >>>>>>>> It needs to work with "-machine none", device_add requires a bus to >>>>>>>> exist, and there is no icc-bus on machine_none. >>>>>>> The thing is that CPUID is a function of machine so using >>>>>>> "-machine none" will provide only approximately accurate data. >>>>>>> I'm not sure that retrieved possibly not accurate data are useful >>>>>>> for libvirt. >>>>>> "-cpu host" doesn't depend on machine, and is the most important thing >>>>>> right now (because libvirt's checks for host QEMU/kernel/CPU >>>>>> capabilities is completely broken). >>>>> true, but device-add/-cpu host could be used right now to get the >>>>> same CPUID data wile using any machine type or default one without >>>>> any of this patches. >>>> >>>> device_add can't be used with "-machine none". >>> >>> I see no reason why we couldn't *make* CPUs work on -machine none. The >>> ICC bus and bridge were a hack to make APIC(?) hot-add work in face of >>> SysBus; if that prohibits other valid uses now, then evaluating Igor's >>> memory work for CPU might be an option. >> Yep, if CPU is hot-plugged as bus-less device. >> There is a little concern of APIC device if we go that direction since >> in addition to hotpluggable BUS, BUS provides address-space for APIC MMIO. >> With that resolved, x86-cpu shouldn't depend on any bus and if there isn't >> any current user that uses QOM path to CPU for introspecting (Eduardo's >> ABI concern), then it could be done in time for 2.1. > > Maybe there are no users of the current QOM path, but we do need a > stable path to allow management to locate the CPU objects. Do we have > one, already? No, we don't. That question is intertwined with topology modeling. :/ Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list