On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 01:28:51PM -0500, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 03:36:03PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > It is useful to know which CPUs satisfy each x86-64 ABI > > compatibility level, when dealing with guest OS that require > > something newer than the baseline ABI. > > > > These ABI levels are defined in: > > > > https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/ > > > > and supported by GCC, CLang, GLibC and more. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > [...] > > diff --git a/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv > > b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..4565e6a535 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv > > @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ > > +Model,baseline,v2,v3,v4 > > +486,,,, > > +486-v1,,,, > > +Broadwell,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-IBRS,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-noTSX,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-noTSX-IBRS,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-v1,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-v2,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-v3,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-v4,✅,✅,✅, > > Unversioned names like "Broadwell" are machine-type-dependent > aliases. I don't think they should be present in the table. > > Models with suffixes like -IBRS, -noTSX, etc. are also aliases to > specific versions. Maybe they could appear in the table for > completeness, but I'm not sure.
I guess just skip the CPUs with "alias-of" reported is easiest Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
