On 4/7/20 9:24 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 08:01 -0400, Liang Yan wrote: >> On 4/7/20 3:54 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: >>> These semantics are not architecture dependent and, while the choice >>> of name is a bit unfortunate considering that QEMU's -cpu host and >>> virt-install's --cpu host have different meanings, I think they're >>> completely unambiguous and reasonably documented, and we should not >>> mess with them. >> >> virt-install supports both "host","host-mdoel" and "host-passthrough", >> "--cpu host" is mapped to "host-model" based on "cli:det_model_b", >> however if you check the default setup in "cpu"set_defaults", it has >> different configuration. Btw, it has different setup for different >> architecture already. Nova also has different setup for aarch64 in my >> defense. >> >> https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/commit/8bc7b950b7c0a3c80cdd120fe4df97c14848c344 > > The default being architecture-dependent, both in virt-install and > in nova, is fine, but if the user explicitly asks for a certain mode > it should still get that mode, not a different one. > >> I agree we could document this situation at least. It does block our >> aarch64 tests while it is ok for x86_64. > > Can't you just use the default? That works on all architectures. > Yes, that is what I suggest our QA people to do. To me, I just thought if we could setup "--cpu host-model" and "--cpu host-passthrough" manually, does it mean we can remove "--cpu host"? Of course, I may misunderstood the meaning of "--cpu host".
