Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 01/19/2010 02:03 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
>> * Anthony Liguori (anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>>
>>> I'm very much against having -cpu Nehalem. The whole point of this is
>>> to make things easier for a user and for most of the users I've
>>> encountered, -cpu Nehalem is just as obscure as -cpu
>>> qemu64,-sse3,+vmx,...
>>>
>> What name will these users know? FWIW, it makes sense to me as it is.
>>
>
> Whatever is in /proc/cpuinfo.
$ grep name /proc/cpuinfo
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz
Which is detailing that exact cpu vs. the class
of which it is a member. So are you suggesting
to map all instances of processors called out
in /proc/cpuinfo into one of the three defined
models? We can certainly do that however I was
looking for a more terse and simplified solution
at this level while deferring more ornate mapping
schemes to management tools.
Still at the user facing CLI this doesn't strike
me as the most friendly encoding of a -cpu <name>.
-john
--
john.cooper@xxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
