Am 15.12.2015 um 06:27 schrieb Zhu Guihua: > <snip> >>> and allow individual targets to use its own way to build CPUs? >>> >>> For initial conversion of x86-cpus to device-add we could do pretty >>> much the same like we do now, where cpu devices will appear under: >>> /machine (pc-i440fx-2.5-machine) >>> /unattached (container) >>> /device[x] (qemu64-x86_64-cpu) >>> >>> since we don't have to maintain/model dummy socket/core objects. >>> >>> PowerPC could do the similar only at core level since it has >>> need for modeling core objects. >>> >>> It doesn't change anything wrt current introspection state, since >>> cpus could be still found by mgmt tools that parse QOM tree. >>> >>> We probably should split 2 conflicting goals we are trying to meet here, >>> >>> 1. make device-add/dell work with cpus / >>> drop support for cpu-add in favor of device_add >>> >>> 2. how to model QOM tree view for CPUs in arch independent manner >>> to make mgmt layer life easier. >>> >>> and work on them independently instead of arguing for years, >>> that would allow us to make progress in #1 while still thinking about >>> how to do #2 the right way if we really need it. >> Makes sense, s390 developer also recommends the same. Given that we have >> CPU hotplug patchsets from x86, PowerPC and s390 all implementing >> device_add >> semantics pending on the list, can we hope to get them merged for >> QEMU-2.6 ? >> >> So as seen below, the device is either "cpu_model-cpu_type" or just >> "cpu_type". >> >> -device POWER8-powerpc64-cpu (pseries) >> -device qemu64-x86_64-cpu (pc) >> -device s390-cpu (s390) >> >> Is this going to be the final acceptable semantics ? Would libvirt be >> able >> to work with this different CPU device names for different guests ? > > Is operating on core level not final decision ?
No, it is absolutely _not_ the conclusion from Seattle. Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
