On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:30:09 +0200
Peter Krempa <pkre...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 18:31:04 +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 17:05:06 +0200
> > Peter Krempa <pkre...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:53:22 -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:22:22PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > I couldn't find anything regarding xlevel (so we might actually not
> > > support it at all), but we indeed do limit the hv_spinlock count:
> > >
> > >
> > > if (def->hyperv_spinlocks < 0xFFF) {
> > > virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s",
> > > _("HyperV spinlock retry count must be
> > > "
> > > "at least 4095"));
> > > goto error;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Peter
> > Peter,
> > Does libvirt still uses -cpu xxx,+feat1,-feat2 syntax
> > or canonical property syntax there feat1=on,feat2=off
>
> We use the legacy one:
>
> -cpu core2duo,+ds,+acpi,+ht,+tm,+ds_cpl, ...
>
> and
>
> -cpu 'qemu32,hv_relaxed,hv_vapic, ...
>
> for the hyperv features.
>
> We probably can switch to the new one if there's a reasonable way how to
> detect that qemu is supporting the new one.
for x86 features became properties since 2.4 release (commit 38e5c119),
that's the one way to know it.
But it's still only +-features for sparc (that's the last remaining
target that has legacy parsing).
Another way to detect it is to probe via QOM if CPU has a property corresponding
to a feature.
Maybe Eduardo knows about other ways to do it.
>
> Peter
>
