target/i386/cpu.c | 2 +- target/ppc/cpu_init.c | 9 +++++---- target/s390x/cpu_models.c | 9 +++++---- 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Printing an architecture prefix in front of each CPU name is not helpful at all: It is confusing for the users since they don't know whether they have to specify these letters for the "-cpu" parameter, too, and it also takes some precious space in the dense output of the CPU entries. Let's simply remove those now. Thomas Huth (3): target/i386/cpu: Remove "x86" prefix from the CPU list target/s390x/cpu_models: Rework the output of "-cpu help" target/ppc/cpu_init: Remove "PowerPC" prefix from the CPU list target/i386/cpu.c | 2 +- target/ppc/cpu_init.c | 9 +++++---- target/s390x/cpu_models.c | 9 +++++---- 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) -- 2.44.0
This series has been successfully tested in x86. Execute the cpu help command and check in the list the x86 prefix is no longer present. Tested-by: Mario Casquero <mcasquer@redhat.com> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 7:47 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > > Printing an architecture prefix in front of each CPU name is not helpful > at all: It is confusing for the users since they don't know whether they > have to specify these letters for the "-cpu" parameter, too, and it also > takes some precious space in the dense output of the CPU entries. Let's > simply remove those now. > > Thomas Huth (3): > target/i386/cpu: Remove "x86" prefix from the CPU list > target/s390x/cpu_models: Rework the output of "-cpu help" > target/ppc/cpu_init: Remove "PowerPC" prefix from the CPU list > > target/i386/cpu.c | 2 +- > target/ppc/cpu_init.c | 9 +++++---- > target/s390x/cpu_models.c | 9 +++++---- > 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.44.0 > >
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 07:46:03AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > Printing an architecture prefix in front of each CPU name is not helpful > at all: It is confusing for the users since they don't know whether they > have to specify these letters for the "-cpu" parameter, too, and it also > takes some precious space in the dense output of the CPU entries. Let's > simply remove those now. Could it be said that this arch prefix is about to finally become useful with Philippe's patches to add a 'qemu-system-any' command covering multiple arches ? With 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 :|
On 22/04/2024 10.03, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 07:46:03AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> Printing an architecture prefix in front of each CPU name is not helpful
>> at all: It is confusing for the users since they don't know whether they
>> have to specify these letters for the "-cpu" parameter, too, and it also
>> takes some precious space in the dense output of the CPU entries. Let's
>> simply remove those now.
>
> Could it be said that this arch prefix is about to finally become useful
> with Philippe's patches to add a 'qemu-system-any' command covering
> multiple arches ?
I don't think so: In that case we'd rather print it once at the beginning of
a list ("Available x86 CPUs:") instead of printing it in each and every line.
Thomas
On 22/4/24 10:22, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 22/04/2024 10.03, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 07:46:03AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> Printing an architecture prefix in front of each CPU name is not helpful
>>> at all: It is confusing for the users since they don't know whether they
>>> have to specify these letters for the "-cpu" parameter, too, and it also
>>> takes some precious space in the dense output of the CPU entries. Let's
>>> simply remove those now.
>>
>> Could it be said that this arch prefix is about to finally become useful
>> with Philippe's patches to add a 'qemu-system-any' command covering
>> multiple arches ?
>
> I don't think so: In that case we'd rather print it once at the
> beginning of a list ("Available x86 CPUs:") instead of printing it in
> each and every line.
Yes that is correct. Hopefully we won't have the same CPU name used
by different architectures...
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
20.04.2024 08:46, Thomas Huth: > Printing an architecture prefix in front of each CPU name is not helpful > at all: It is confusing for the users since they don't know whether they > have to specify these letters for the "-cpu" parameter, too, and it also > takes some precious space in the dense output of the CPU entries. Let's > simply remove those now. > > Thomas Huth (3): > target/i386/cpu: Remove "x86" prefix from the CPU list > target/s390x/cpu_models: Rework the output of "-cpu help" > target/ppc/cpu_init: Remove "PowerPC" prefix from the CPU list Reviewed-by: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> I'll pick it up for trivial-patches after 9.0 is out. This also reminded me about https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/2141 /mjt
On 4/19/24 22:46, Thomas Huth wrote: > Thomas Huth (3): > target/i386/cpu: Remove "x86" prefix from the CPU list > target/s390x/cpu_models: Rework the output of "-cpu help" > target/ppc/cpu_init: Remove "PowerPC" prefix from the CPU list Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> r~
On 20.04.24 07:46, Thomas Huth wrote: > Printing an architecture prefix in front of each CPU name is not helpful > at all: It is confusing for the users since they don't know whether they > have to specify these letters for the "-cpu" parameter, too, and it also > takes some precious space in the dense output of the CPU entries. Let's > simply remove those now. Yes, I also never really understood the purpose. -- Cheers, David / dhildenb
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.