The processor type values were *not* taken from CIM. (We looked at CIM but decided it was not appropriate in this case.) The values are "based on the Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) names of a small number of common processor architectures." (p10 of the spec.) You can make the statement for "any x86" with the defined values. Marvin Theimer wrote:
Hi;
I think with processor types we just grabbed a snapshot of the CIM model
and went with that; updating to use a later version of that would not
cause great difficulty (though the reverse problem might then exist, in
that it might become more difficult to say that any kind of x86 arch is
OK for a particular job).
However, I believe we would assume the following interpretation of
processor requirements: if specified, that's what they want for all
processors associated with the job. If they didn't specify, they didn't
care and anything is therefore good enough.
Agreed. Also, one possibility is to explicitly specify some of the commonly occurring “semi-bound” scenarios, such as “any x86” architecture. I’m not familiar enough with the CIM world to know if they can provide us with guidance on how to solve the problem in general.
-- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd