Re: [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] [PATCH 7/9] qmp: Add runnability information to query-cpu-definitions

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:

> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:20:15AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 05/06/2016 12:11 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> > Extend query-cpu-definitions schema to allow it to return two new
>> > optional fields: "runnable" and "unavailable-features".
>> > "runnable" will tell if the CPU model can be run in the current
>> > host. "unavailable-features" will contain a list of CPU
>> > properties that are preventing the CPU model from running in the
>> > current host.
>> > 
>> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> > Cc: Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> > Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>> > Cc: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
>> > Cc: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
>> > Cc: libvir-list@redhat.com
>> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> >  qapi-schema.json | 10 +++++++++-
>> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/qapi-schema.json b/qapi-schema.json
>> > index 54634c4..450e6e7 100644
>> > --- a/qapi-schema.json
>> > +++ b/qapi-schema.json
>> > @@ -2948,11 +2948,19 @@
>> >  # Virtual CPU definition.
>> >  #
>> >  # @name: the name of the CPU definition
>> > +# @runnable: true if the CPU model is runnable using the current
>> > +#            machine and accelerator. Optional. Since 2.6.
>> 
>> You've missed 2.6.  Also, the typical spelling for a per-member
>> designation is '(since 2.7)', not 'Since 2.7'
>
> Oops! I meant 2.7, and I didn't notice that it was not using the
> typical format. I will fix it, thanks.
>
>> 
>> Why is it optional? Would it hurt to always be present in qemu new
>> enough to understand why it is needed?
>
> It is optional because not all architectures will return the
> field. This series implements it only for x86.

Its documentation seems to suggest missing runnable has the same meaning
as runnable: false.  Is that correct?