[libvirt] CPU model versioning separate from machine type versioning ?

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:14:17AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé 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:
> > 
> > * 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".
> > 
> > * Ordering/preference info, e.g.: "Haswell-3.1 is better than
> >   Haswell-3.0, prefer the latter"
> 
> 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.

-- 
Eduardo