On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:29:08PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 09/22/14 14:04, Andreas Färber wrote: > > Am 22.09.2014 um 13:26 schrieb Laszlo Ersek: > >> Based on the registration order captured in the previous patch, we > >> sort the ad-hoc list printed for > >> > >> qemu-system-XXXX -M \? > > > > Agree that the order is worth sanitizing. I would however argue that > > registration order is not entirely stable either if you think of > > non-PC cases where there's dozens of source files registering one > > machine each. I would therefore propose alphabetical order as we do > > for QOM'ified CPUs. > > I did mention alphabetical order in the message of patch #1 -- in fact > that was what I implemented first: > > > The first idea to restore ordering is to sort the ad-hoc list in > > machine_parse() by "MachineClass.name". Such a name-based ordering > > would have to be reverse, so that more recent versioned machine types > > appear higher on the list than older versioned machine types (eg. with > > qemu-system-x86_64). However, such a reverse sort wreaks havoc between > > non-versioned machine types (such as those of qemu-system-aarch64). > > Simply put, it looks very ugly. Namely, if you sort it in alphabetically > *ascending* order, then for the x86_64 target, you get: > > > isapc ISA-only PC > > none empty machine > > pc Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) (alias of > > pc-i440fx-2.2) > > pc-0.10 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.11 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.12 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.13 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.14 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.15 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-1.0 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-1.1 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-1.2 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-1.3 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-1.4 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-1.5 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-1.6 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-1.7 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-2.0 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-2.1 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-2.2 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) (default) > > pc-q35-1.4 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-1.5 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-1.6 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-1.7 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-2.0 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-2.1 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-2.2 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > q35 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) (alias of pc-q35-2.2) > > which is very bad / unusual. Okay, so let's sort it in alphabetically > descending order: > > > q35 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) (alias of pc-q35-2.2) > > pc-q35-2.2 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-2.1 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-2.0 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-1.7 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-1.6 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-1.5 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-q35-1.4 Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > > pc-i440fx-2.2 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) (default) > > pc-i440fx-2.1 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-2.0 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-1.7 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-1.6 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-1.5 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-i440fx-1.4 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-1.3 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-1.2 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-1.1 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-1.0 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.15 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.14 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.13 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.12 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.11 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc-0.10 Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) > > pc Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) (alias of > > pc-i440fx-2.2) > > none empty machine > > isapc ISA-only PC > > Okay, this is certainly bearable. However, let's see what the reverse > alpha sort does to aarch64: > > > z2 Zipit Z2 (PXA27x) > > xilinx-zynq-a9 Xilinx Zynq Platform Baseboard for Cortex-A9 > > virt ARM Virtual Machine > > vexpress-a9 ARM Versatile Express for Cortex-A9 > > vexpress-a15 ARM Versatile Express for Cortex-A15 > > versatilepb ARM Versatile/PB (ARM926EJ-S) > > versatileab ARM Versatile/AB (ARM926EJ-S) > > verdex Gumstix Verdex (PXA270) > > tosa Tosa PDA (PXA255) > > terrier Terrier PDA (PXA270) > > sx1-v1 Siemens SX1 (OMAP310) V1 > > sx1 Siemens SX1 (OMAP310) V2 > > spitz Spitz PDA (PXA270) > > smdkc210 Samsung SMDKC210 board (Exynos4210) > > realview-pbx-a9 ARM RealView Platform Baseboard Explore for Cortex-A9 > > realview-pb-a8 ARM RealView Platform Baseboard for Cortex-A8 > > realview-eb-mpcore ARM RealView Emulation Baseboard (ARM11MPCore) > > realview-eb ARM RealView Emulation Baseboard (ARM926EJ-S) > > nuri Samsung NURI board (Exynos4210) > > none empty machine > > n810 Nokia N810 tablet aka. RX-44 (OMAP2420) > > n800 Nokia N800 tablet aka. RX-34 (OMAP2420) > > musicpal Marvell 88w8618 / MusicPal (ARM926EJ-S) > > midway Calxeda Midway (ECX-2000) > > mainstone Mainstone II (PXA27x) > > lm3s811evb Stellaris LM3S811EVB > > lm3s6965evb Stellaris LM3S6965EVB > > kzm ARM KZM Emulation Baseboard (ARM1136) > > integratorcp ARM Integrator/CP (ARM926EJ-S) > > highbank Calxeda Highbank (ECX-1000) > > cubieboard cubietech cubieboard > > connex Gumstix Connex (PXA255) > > collie Collie PDA (SA-1110) > > cheetah Palm Tungsten|E aka. Cheetah PDA (OMAP310) > > canon-a1100 Canon PowerShot A1100 IS > > borzoi Borzoi PDA (PXA270) > > akita Akita PDA (PXA270) > > Ugh? The reverse sort is painfully obvious, and the user wonders why it > is necessary. Why is z2 at the top, and akita at the bottom? Why is n810 > above n800 and not below it? And so on. > > Instead, the patchset restores the behavior that had been visible before > commit 261747f1: programmer-controlled logical order *within* clusters, > and unspecified order *between* clusters.
We could add a cluster name in the API. Use that for sort between clusters only. Hmm? > IOW, I tested your idea (because it was my first idea as well), and I > thought (and still think) that alpha sort is inferior to the > pre-261747f1 order. > > Thanks, > Laszlo