[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable
From: |
Igor Mammedov |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:21:34 +0100 |
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:18:01 -0500
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:17:36AM +0000, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 2021-01-20 at 10:08:03 GMT, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:30:52AM -0500, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 04:27:56PM +0000, David Edmondson wrote:
> > >> > On Tuesday, 2021-01-19 at 10:20:56 -05, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks for the patch. Getting rid of special -feature/+feature
> > >> > > behavior was in our TODO list for a long time.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:22:06PM +0000, David Edmondson wrote:
> > >> > >> "Minus" features are applied after "plus" features, so ensure that a
> > >> > >> later "plus" feature causes an earlier "minus" feature to be
> > >> > >> removed.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> This has no effect on the existing "-feature,feature=on" backward
> > >> > >> compatibility code (which warns and turns the feature off).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If we are changing behavior, why not change behavior of
> > >> > > "-feature,feature=on" at the same time? This would allow us to
> > >> > > get rid of plus_features/minus_features completely and just make
> > >> > > +feature/-feature synonyms to feature=on/feature=off.
> > >> >
> > >> > Okay, I'll do that.
> > >> >
> > >> > Given that there have been warnings associated with
> > >> > "-feature,feature=on" for a while, changing that behaviour seems
> > >> > acceptable.
> > >> >
> > >> > Would the same be true for changing "-feature,+feature"? (i.e. what
> > >> > this
> > >> > patch does) Really: can this just be changed, or does there have to be
> > >> > some period where the behaviour stays the same with a warning?
> > >>
> > >> I actually expected warnings to be triggered when using
> > >> "-feature,+feature" as well. If we were not generating warnings
> > >> for that case, it will need more careful evaluation, just to be
> > >> sure it's safe. Igor, do you remember the details here?
> > >
> > > Where are you expecting warnings ? I don't see any when launching QEMU
> >
> > qemu-system-x86_64 -display none -cpu Westmere,-vmx,+vmx
> >
> > Warnings because the result of this is "-vmx".
> >
> > > IMHO just leave the parsing unchanged, deprecate it, and then delete
> > > the code. We don't need to "improve" usability semantics of something
> > > that we want to delete anyway.
> >
> > /me nods.
>
> I agree, but I guess we need to convince Paolo:
> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/1990888058.22417362.1465939000140.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com/
that's ancient :)
He recently started this revolution himself :)
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg757280.html
That's why I have -cpu +/-foo deprecation on my not too far away TODO list.
- [RFC PATCH 2/2] target/i386: Add "-cpu +kvm-no-defaults", (continued)
- [RFC PATCH 2/2] target/i386: Add "-cpu +kvm-no-defaults", David Edmondson, 2021/01/19
- [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model, -feature, +feature should enable feature, David Edmondson, 2021/01/19
- Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature, Eduardo Habkost, 2021/01/19
- Re: [External] : Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature, David Edmondson, 2021/01/19
- Re: [External] : Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature, Eduardo Habkost, 2021/01/19
- Re: [External] : Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature, Igor Mammedov, 2021/01/20
- Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature, David Edmondson, 2021/01/20
- Re: [External] : Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2021/01/20
- Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature, David Edmondson, 2021/01/20
- Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature, Eduardo Habkost, 2021/01/20
- Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature should enable feature,
Igor Mammedov <=
- [PATCH] docs/system: Deprecate `-cpu ...,+feature,-feature` syntax, Eduardo Habkost, 2021/01/20
- Re: [PATCH] docs/system: Deprecate `-cpu ..., +feature, -feature` syntax, David Edmondson, 2021/01/20
- Re: [PATCH] docs/system: Deprecate `-cpu ...,+feature,-feature` syntax, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2021/01/21
- Re: [PATCH] docs/system: Deprecate `-cpu ...,+feature,-feature` syntax, John Snow, 2021/01/26
- Re: [PATCH] docs/system: Deprecate `-cpu ...,+feature,-feature` syntax, Igor Mammedov, 2021/01/21
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] x86 CPU feature +/- fiddling and +kvm-no-defaults, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2021/01/19