From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41510) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bUafu-0005Zi-Gq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:28:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bUafq-0001si-Lc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:28:06 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:61310 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bUafq-0001sa-FM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:28:02 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u72ENusX060212 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:28:01 -0400 Received: from e06smtp09.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp09.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.105]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 24gpcxd5pe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:28:01 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp09.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:28:00 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50102190046 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:27:23 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.248]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u72ERvdU9896230 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 14:27:57 GMT Received: from d06av07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u72ERvWC019508 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:27:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 16:27:55 +0200 From: David Hildenbrand In-Reply-To: <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> <20160802140031.GF3337@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20160802162755.17ec8ada@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: Eduardo Habkost 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". Sounds good to me! > > > > > > > > > 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.) > Hmm, if "static" means, the model will never be changed, but it was changed in the past, this sounds somewhat strange. I would rather say then "information is not available" == no guarantee. But if nobody else sees a problem with that, I can just set it to stable=false on all other architectures. Thanks! David