Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: > Am 22.07.2013 13:34, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> On 22 July 2013 12:17, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>> Am 22.07.2013 12:40, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>> In any case we should be >>>> consistent across target architectures about what we allow. >>> >>> alpha allows both > [...] >>> It didn't have -cpu ? before QOM, so we decided to print the type names >>> there. >> >> Looking at all of the '-cpu help' output, alpha seems to be >> the odd one out here: none of the others list valid CPUs >> with "-$arch-cpu" suffixes. > > Right, because all others had implemented -cpu ? before we introduced > that naming scheme and I tried to keep output compatibility for them. > Focus for alpha was therefore on -cpu foo compatibility only. > > Anthony had clearly stated on a KVM call that using full type names for > future CPU hot-add was the right thing to do and possibly even composite > convenience types like 4core-xeonblabla-x86_64-cpu; how that relates to > -cpu and new targets was never clearly defined though. ;)
That's pretty gross, but yes, we should have: qemu -device Xeon-E5-4610,id=sock0 -device Xeon-E5-4610,id=sock1 Which effectively does: qemu -cpu SandyBridge -smp cores=6,threads=2,sockets=2 By today's standards. I think this applies equally well to other architecture. Model hardware more closely. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > For VMSD we decided to deviate for new migratable targets from legacy > CPUs in favor of consistency with devices, for instance. > >>> Stripping -alpha-cpu off typenames would surely be possible. >> >> I think that that would be better in the name of consistency. > >> Also regarding consistency, not all targets react very well >> to being asked for a nonexistent cpu via "-cpu xyzzy": >> alpha and s390x just plough on without an error > > s390x does not have models yet. This will get fixed once we have agreed > on model names and their implementation. > >> lm32 and unicore32 segfault >> >> (some of this may be default board model bugs rather than >> target-* bugs). > > Yeah, for one sh4 board where I noticed it while refactoring I already > applied an error check. I guess cpu_init() / cpu_*_init() is not > NULL-checked in more machines. Not sure if trying invalid arguments > would be applicable for a qtest? > > Andreas > > -- > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg