From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47366) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fYxPy-0000Fm-No for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:42:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fYxPw-0008Nj-N1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:42:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56712) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fYxPw-0008LH-GQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:42:44 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BFF6811A9 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:42:39 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20180629174239.GQ7451@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180628154502.GO3513@redhat.com> <20180628195227.GH7451@localhost.localdomain> <20180629101417.GB27016@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180629101417.GB27016@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] CPU model versioning separate from machine type versioning ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, libvir-list@redhat.com On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:14:17AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrang=E9 wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:52:27PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: [...] > > I'm not sure what would be the best way to encode two types of > > information, though: > >=20 > > * Fallback/alternatives info, e.g.: "It makes sense to use > > Haswell-{3.0,2.12,2.5,...} if Haswell-3.1 is not runnable and the > > user asked for Haswell". > >=20 > > * Ordering/preference info, e.g.: "Haswell-3.1 is better than > > Haswell-3.0, prefer the latter" >=20 > The version number of course gives an ordering, but we generally > tell people not to assume version is numeric. We could report > an explicit "priority" in some manner against each. Makes sense. "priority" could be included on query-cpu-definitions to help software choose the best alternative, and "version" could be just an opaque string that libvirt needs to save after expanding a CPU model. --=20 Eduardo