From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38383) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fj4Bc-0006OD-6s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 10:57:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fj4BZ-0002sC-6A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 10:57:44 -0400 References: <20180725091233.3300-1-david@redhat.com> <20180725170925.GE12380@localhost.localdomain> <20180725201438.GG12380@localhost.localdomain> <36882ae2-5a00-d842-0b0d-d1458b1f0654@redhat.com> <20180726150754.GL12380@localhost.localdomain> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <5a5f4272-907c-d2d3-a7b2-30366eeed4b5@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:57:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180726150754.GL12380@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v1] s390x/cpu_models: Add "-cpu max" support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: Thomas Huth , Chris Venteicher , "=?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P._Berrang=c3=a9?=" , Cornelia Huck , Alexander Graf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Christian Borntraeger , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Collin Walling , Richard Henderson > If we had a S390KVMAccelerator object on machine->accelerator, > S390KVMAccelerator::host_model would be a good candidate? Depends if at that point the machine would already be initialized (we disable CPU model support for KVM on some legacy machine due to interactions). It's complicated :) [...] >> Right now the semantics are clear: if we have "!cpu->model" after the >> object has been created, details about the host CPU model are not >> available (models unavailable/unsupported). Modifying properties, >> baselining, expanding is not possible with that model then. But it can >> be used for execution. > > This is interesting. If most users of cpu->model don't care > about kvm_s390_get_host_cpu_model() errors at all, the current > solution sounds more reasonable. > > Except for the error_report_err() call inside instance_init. > This still bothers me, but it's not a big deal. Yes, we should refactor that. I'll add this to my TODO list! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb