From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33274) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bUaFJ-0004yH-RA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:00:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bUaFH-0003bt-5O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:00:37 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35202) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bUaFG-0003bo-VV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:00:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:00:31 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20160802140031.GF3337@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> References: <1470139155-53900-1-git-send-email-dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1470139155-53900-2-git-send-email-dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160802130432.GD3337@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> <20160802152330.119f6892@thinkpad-w530> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160802152330.119f6892@thinkpad-w530> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Patch v1 01/29] qmp: details about CPU definitions in query-cpu-definitions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Hildenbrand Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, jdenemar@redhat.com, imammedo@redhat.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mimu@linux.vnet.ibm.com On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:23:30PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: [...] > > > +# > > > +# @static: #optional whether a CPU definition is static and will not change > > > +# between QEMU versions / QEMU machines. A static model is always > > > +# migration-safe. If not provided, information is not available. > > > > I assume static models don't change depending on the > > machine-type, either. If that's case, we should document that. > > That's what I meant with "QEMU machines", should that be "QEMU machine types" > instead? Sorry, I was reading it too quickly. You did document it. :) We could extend it to mention the other guarantees (just like my previous suggestion for CpuModelExpansionType::static): "will not change depending on QEMU version, machine type, machine options, and accelerator options". > > > > > I believe in this case we don't need to make it optional: just > > make the field always present and set it to "false" by default. > > That is true for x86, do you know about the other architectures (arm, ppc)? > I'd like to avoid returning false information here for other architectures. As being "static" is not a fact about the existing code, but just a guarantee about what the developers are going to do in the future, static=false just means that the developers didn't make any promises yet (so I don't think it would ever be false information). In other words, I believe we can safely assume a CPU model is not guaranteed to be static unless the maintainers decided to explicitly document it as static (and change the data returned by query-cpu-definitions). (I am assuming that changing it from "false" to "true" in a new QEMU version won't be a problem for anybody.) -- Eduardo