> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:27:55PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > [...] > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > If the CPU model really changed in the past, I think it must be > always set to "false". > > But if it never changed in the past and we never made an explicit > decision about future guarantees, we can set it to "false" today, > and change it to "true" later (after we made a decision). > > > > > But if nobody else sees a problem with that, I can just set it to > > stable=false > > on all other architectures. > > I think it's OK, as long we set it to "true" only if it never > changed in the past. >
That indeed is okay. So I'll change that for arm,ppc and x86 (static=false for all returned definitions). David
