On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:09:53PM -0500, john cooper wrote: > 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>. To be honest all possible naming schemes for '-cpu <name>' are just as unfriendly as each other. The only user friendly option is '-cpu host'. IMHO, we should just pick a concise naming scheme & document it. Given they are all equally unfriendly, the one that has consistency with vmware naming seems like a mild winner. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- 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
