On 25.11.19 18:20, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > As soon as dynamic feature groups are used, the CPU model becomes > migration-unsafe. Upper layers can expand these models to migration-safe > and static variants, allowing them to be migrated. I really dislike that. I am trying to get rid of the unsafe variants (e.g. now defaulting to host-model instead of host-passthrough). I do not want to give users new ways of hurting themselves. Unless I misunderstood Eduardo, I think his versioning approach is actually better in regard to migration, no? I z terms, you can still say -cpu z13 which is just an alias to z13v1 z13v2 etc. Assuming that the version is checked this will be safe.
- [PATCH v2 0/2] s390x/cpumodel: Introduce dynamic fea... David Hildenbrand
- [PATCH v2 1/2] s390x/cpumodel: Factor out CPU f... David Hildenbrand
- [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/cpumodel: Introduce dynami... David Hildenbrand
- Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/cpumodel: Introduc... Christian Borntraeger
- Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/cpumodel: Intr... David Hildenbrand
- Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/cpumodel: ... Christian Borntraeger
- Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/cpumo... David Hildenbrand
- Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/c... Eduardo Habkost
- Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s39... David Hildenbrand
- Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s39... Eduardo Habkost
- Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s39... David Hildenbrand
- Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s39... Eduardo Habkost
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] s390x/cpumodel: Introduce dy... no-reply