> Am 24.08.2015 um 22:22 schrieb Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de>:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Am 24.08.2015 um 03:17 schrieb Peter Lieven:
>> this patch adds a probe that lists all enforceable and migrateable
>> CPU models to the -cpu help output. The idea is to know a priory
>> which CPU modules can be exposed to the user without loosing any
>
> models
>
>> feature flags.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <p...@kamp.de>
>> ---
>> target-i386/cpu.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
>> index cfb8aa7..3a56d3f 100644
>> --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
>> +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
> [...]
>> @@ -1987,6 +2026,16 @@ void x86_cpu_list(FILE *f, fprintf_function
>> cpu_fprintf)
>> listflags(f, cpu_fprintf, fw->feat_names);
>> (*cpu_fprintf)(f, "\n");
>> }
>> +
>> + (*cpu_fprintf)(f, "\nEnforceable and migratable x86 CPU models in KVM
>> mode:\n");
>> + (*cpu_fprintf)(f, " ");
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(builtin_x86_defs); i++) {
>> + def = &builtin_x86_defs[i];
>> + if (x86_cpu_enforce_and_migratable(def)) {
>> + (*cpu_fprintf)(f, " %s", def->name);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + (*cpu_fprintf)(f, "\n");
>> }
>>
>> CpuDefinitionInfoList *arch_query_cpu_definitions(Error **errp)
>
> I don't think adding a new section is such a good idea here, it may add
> more confusion than it helps. I would rather suggest to add some
> annotation to the existing list.
I have also thought of this first, but found it confusing as well. But maybe
you have a good idea how to format it?
I also think of Erics concern that it might be a good idea to get a json output
of supported models somehow.
Peter
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
