On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:21:10AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:12:45PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 01:49:12PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
[...]
> > - - -
> >
> > Should we (can do it, if you already don't have a patch W
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:12:45PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 01:49:12PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > We have been trying to avoid adding new aliases for CPU model
> > versions, but in the case of changes in defaults introduced by
> > the TAA mitigation patches,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 01:49:12PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> We have been trying to avoid adding new aliases for CPU model
> versions, but in the case of changes in defaults introduced by
> the TAA mitigation patches, the aliases might help avoid user
> confusion when applying host software u
We have been trying to avoid adding new aliases for CPU model
versions, but in the case of changes in defaults introduced by
the TAA mitigation patches, the aliases might help avoid user
confusion when applying host software updates.
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost
---
target/i386/cpu.c | 5 +
