)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"626ac64c046cd0837c20b239d88b2652dfa7edad","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"Currently, `_get_cpu_feature_traits()` considers all `cpu.features`"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"as enabled, but some may be disabled in `cpu_model_extra_flags` [1]."},{"line_number":11,"context_line":""},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"This seems like false-positive traits (enabled w/ feature disabled)."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"So, filter out disabled features, like LibvirtConfigCPU.parse_dom()."},{"line_number":15,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"860917ab_24066f06","line":12,"updated":"2024-05-17 14:09:35.000000000","message":"you could argue this either way HW traits are ment to be related to the hardware that is hosting the workload not the feature exposed to the guest\n\nso in that context the current behavior is actually correct.\nthis is partly why they are not filtered today.\nthe other reason they are not filtered today is that traits are not ment to model confiugation but rather capablity.\n\nthere were sevevl back and foourt converstaion on this exact topic over they years where we started form a stancy that config options should never alter the reported traits.\n\nover the years we have relaxed that stance and take a stance that if configure nova such that a capablity cant be used or conversly have a cpablity that requires configuatin that is not done we should not report the trait.\n\nthat is because if you are explictly requesting a trait as a user you should have the expecation that that capablity can be used.\n\nso if the admin has used the cpu extra flags to disabel a cpu feature and you view that in the lense of our more recent direction i can see the argument that we should be filtering them\n\nim not sure this is something that would be safe to backport but it\nis something i think we could change as you have proposed here.","commit_id":"3e9dfbedeac842c9c543f75126902534131dbeb3"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"626ac64c046cd0837c20b239d88b2652dfa7edad","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"5e1c4fb1_32c2ad6c","line":62,"updated":"2024-05-17 14:09:35.000000000","message":"if we want to make thsi change we should have a bug or bluepirnt for it\n\ni would start with a bug unless other  disagree.","commit_id":"3e9dfbedeac842c9c543f75126902534131dbeb3"}],"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":28621,"name":"Mauricio Faria de Oliveira","email":"mfo@canonical.com","username":"mfo"},"change_message_id":"43e2c6546bd9c68d354a2742edfc582f38b869eb","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"7c71392b_a2d5de34","updated":"2024-05-17 13:18:31.000000000","message":"Hi Kashyap,\n\nAssigning you as a reviewer per previous work on `cpu_model_extra_flags` to disable CPU features.\n\nCould you please take a look, if at all possible?\n\nThanks!","commit_id":"3e9dfbedeac842c9c543f75126902534131dbeb3"}]}