Am 12.12.2012 16:05, schrieb Viktor Mihajlovski: > On 12/12/2012 02:51 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> + (*cpu_fprintf)(f, "s390 %16s\n", "[host]"); >> >> Note that the square-bracket notation was specific to x86 when it >> distinguished between built-in and config-based models. >> > OK, since libvirt capable of dealing with s390 cpu models will > never see this, we can change it any way that is wanted. > So, host without brackets?
Yes, but see below... >> "host" only makes sense for KVM, not for TCG. So we would need one other >> placeholder model for libvirt. > see my reply to Alex' comment: the placeholder name must be chosen > carefully, i.e. future-proof On further thoughts, didn't we discuss that the issue libvirt wants to address is that migration from z10 to z9 must fail? That's not solved with -cpu host, we would need two other models then. IMO ideally -cpu host should have the same semantics as on x86, that is passing the host features through mostly 1:1. IIUC there is currently no way to not do so? What about future-wise having -cpu host not be a subclass and instead behaving like Alex' -cpu best, given the above semantics? What I am just worried about with this patch is cementing the use of -cpu host into libvirt when that is not a mid-term solution. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg