On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:50:16 -0200 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > This is an attempt to summarize my main question from the thread: > Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v5] target-i386: Slim conversion to X86CPU > subclasses + KVM subclasses > > My main unanswered question is about the "stability" expectations of the > introspectable class data (especially property defaults). > > I am assuming and expecting that the introspectable QOM class data > (especially property defaults) should simply reflect > capabilities/behavior of the QEMU binary being queried, and would not > change depending on the environment QEMU is running (host hardware and > host kernel). This way, other components can use class introspection to > probe for QEMU capabilities/behavior, and safely expect that the QEMU > binary being queried will always have those capabilities/behavior. > > What Igor is proposing is to break my assumption, and make the default > value of the "vendor" property on the X86CPU subclasses be different > depending on the host CPU where QEMU is running. i.e. reflecting actual value of CPUID.vendor of the host. alternative proposed by Eduardo: is to abstract default value of "vendor" property to "host" string. > > My question is: is that really OK? > > In another case, we are considering making other properties of a X86CPU > subclass have different defaults depending on the capabilities of the > host kernel (the "host" CPU class will have different feature property > defaults depending on the capabilities reported by GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID). > Would that be OK, too? >
