Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] docs: add a table showing x86-64 ABI compatibility levels

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 01:28:51PM -0500, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 03:36:03PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > It is useful to know which CPUs satisfy each x86-64 ABI
> > compatibility level, when dealing with guest OS that require
> > something newer than the baseline ABI.
> > 
> > These ABI levels are defined in:
> > 
> >   https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/
> > 
> > and supported by GCC, CLang, GLibC and more.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> [...]
> > diff --git a/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..4565e6a535
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv
> > @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
> > +Model,baseline,v2,v3,v4
> > +486,,,,
> > +486-v1,,,,
> > +Broadwell,✅,✅,✅,
> > +Broadwell-IBRS,✅,✅,✅,
> > +Broadwell-noTSX,✅,✅,✅,
> > +Broadwell-noTSX-IBRS,✅,✅,✅,
> > +Broadwell-v1,✅,✅,✅,
> > +Broadwell-v2,✅,✅,✅,
> > +Broadwell-v3,✅,✅,✅,
> > +Broadwell-v4,✅,✅,✅,
> 
> Unversioned names like "Broadwell" are machine-type-dependent
> aliases.  I don't think they should be present in the table.
> 
> Models with suffixes like -IBRS, -noTSX, etc. are also aliases to
> specific versions.  Maybe they could appear in the table for
> completeness, but I'm not sure.

I guess just skip the CPUs with "alias-of" reported is easiest


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|