[pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager] cpumodelselector : add EPYC

[Dominik Csapak]

On 09/03/2018 01:42 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 9/3/18 12:35 PM, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> On 09/02/2018 07:52 AM, Alexandre Derumier wrote:
>>> ---
>>>    www/manager6/form/CPUModelSelector.js | 1 +
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/www/manager6/form/CPUModelSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/CPUModelSelector.js
>>> index d3315513..9eb5b0e9 100644
>>> --- a/www/manager6/form/CPUModelSelector.js
>>> +++ b/www/manager6/form/CPUModelSelector.js
>>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.CPUModelSelector', {
>>>        ['Opteron_G3', 'Opteron_G3'],
>>>        ['Opteron_G4', 'Opteron_G4'],
>>>        ['Opteron_G5', 'Opteron_G5'],
>>> +    ['EPYC', 'EPYC'],
>>>        ['host', 'host']
>>>          ]
>>>
>>
>> looks good, but i wanted to generate that component from qemu help output (qemu-system-x86_64 -cpu ?) for some time now
>>
>> i will look at how hard this would be and send that, otherwise
>> we can include your patch
>>
> 
> As the list gets not often updated (new major QEMU release, or special
> occasions like a shiny big new security hole in a CPU) I'm not sure if
> that's worth it. If, I'd only generate one at build time, that way we also
> still have control about what exactly gets shown, e.g., we do not show 'max'
> or 'base' and values not included in $cpu_vendor_list from PVE::QemuServer
> cannot be used anyway.
> Those, approx., two CPU list updates a year could be managed manually just
> fine, IMO.
> 

yeah, my idea was to include a script which generates the file 
on-demand, so no automatic build step or something like that

but i'm also ok with manually updating it :)