Re: [libvirt] [REPOST PATCH] tests: Update x86_64 replies, caps to QEMU 2.12

On 05/16/2018 06:30 PM, John Ferlan wrote: > > > On 05/16/2018 11:09 AM, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:52:56AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > > Using a QEMU 2.12 tagged tree build and full build, used: > > > > > > tests/qemucapsprobe /home/qemu/x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 > \ > > > tests/qemucapabilitiesdata/caps_2.12.0.x86_64.replies > > > > > > VIR_TEST_REGENERATE_OUTPUT=1 tests/qemucapabilitiestest > > > VIR_TEST_REGENERATE_OUTPUT=1 tests/domaincapstest > > > > > > Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > --- > > > Reposting : > > > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-May/msg00738.html > > > > > > with recent updates through commit id fe8a0679 > > > > I need to finish the work on adding some exact steps or possible docker > > image to regenerate capabilities. > > But aren't some of the responses better tied to native hardware rather > than virtualized (which I'm assuming a docker image may provide)? > Especially the CPU ones and as seen from the s390x patch on list the > response from qemuMonitorJSONGetKVMState. > > > > > I would create a rule that if someone is updating replies files they > > should check whether the CPU changes are only because of different host > > CPU or whether there is some actual change. In the first case they > > should not be part of the patch, it just pollutes the diff with > > unnecessary changes. > > If we had/used the same, native box for each iteration of the > capabilities files, then sure this probably would be easier unless > someone (other than me ;-)) wants to mock a "fully featured" response. > > What we don't want to do is commit the emulated results, which I believe > was done in the last go around - check the s390x results for the > GetKVMState reply (libvirt-7) compared to what's posted upstream from > real hardware yesterday by Shalini. > > I also don't think it's "right" to edit whatever CPU response one gets > just because it's run on different hardware just so we can avoid > polluting the diff. Again, back to my previous points - same, native > hardware or better mocking... > > > > > Additional note related to the first paragraph, I don't thing that we > > need to include "xen" related things in replies since they are not used > > by QEMU driver. > > > > I was wondering why those xen* things showed up - perhaps because my > environment included the xen-devel package... After removing, yep those > go away... I could post another version, but it sounds like this isn't > desired anyway - so I won't pursue it too much. Just figured it would > be better to have 2.12 instead of 2.11.90 in the caps/replies that we > store. The details of CPU differences seem to always be a given. We > don't "filter" the initial posting based on it so requiring any update > posted by someone using different hardware would seem to be overkill > especially since it doesn't really seem to matter. > > John > > BTW: It also seems spice* type flags/bits only show up in certain > environments - so that perhaps too could be considered for some sort of > mocking. Something that's different between the s390x results posted > upstream as well as the x86_64 results I created. Isn't the spice capability depending on how the qemu binary was build?