Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/5] s390: Report blank host model instead of "host"
On 11/03/2016 08:54 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 16:34:32 -0400, Jason J. Herne wrote:
> From: "Collin L. Walling" <walling(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> On s390 , the host's features are heavily influenced by not only the host
> hardware but also by hardware microcode level, host OS version, qemu
> version and kvm version. In this environment it does not make sense to
> attempt to report exact host details. Rather than use the generic "host"
> we leave this field blank.
>
> Signed-off-by: Collin L. Walling <walling(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <jjherne(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> src/cpu/cpu_s390.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/cpu/cpu_s390.c b/src/cpu/cpu_s390.c
> index 0f94084..c75eacb 100644
> --- a/src/cpu/cpu_s390.c
> +++ b/src/cpu/cpu_s390.c
> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ s390Decode(virCPUDefPtr cpu,
> virCheckFlags(VIR_CONNECT_BASELINE_CPU_EXPAND_FEATURES, -1);
>
> if (cpu->model == NULL &&
> - VIR_STRDUP(cpu->model, "host") < 0)
> + VIR_STRDUP(cpu->model, "") < 0)
> return -1;
>
> return 0;
I think this function shouldn't do anything. Reporting "host" or even
""
as host CPU is pointless. If we cannot provide anything reasonable, we
should not report it at all.
I would agree. But virsh domcapabilities only indicates support for
host-model
mode if we have something in cpu->hostModel.
virDomainCapsCPUFormat()
...
if (cpu->hostModel) {
virBufferAddLit(buf, "supported='yes'>\n");
It also causes the guest to fail when trying to use host-model mode
because virQEMUCapsInitHostCPUModel() skips setting qemuCaps->hostCPUModel
if caps->host.cpu->model does not exist.
Using an empty string here fixes both. Should I stick with it, or should we
fix the problems elsewhere?
--
-- Jason J. Herne (jjherne(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com)