On 12/17/20 12:19 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 10:10 +0100, Shalini Chellathurai Saroja wrote:
tests/domaincapsdata/qemu_5.2.0.s390x.xml | 231 + .../caps_5.2.0.s390x.replies | 25458 ++++++++++++++++ .../qemucapabilitiesdata/caps_5.2.0.s390x.xml | 3300 ++ ...default-video-type-s390x.s390x-latest.args | 9 +- .../disk-error-policy-s390x.s390x-latest.args | 16 +- .../fs9p-ccw.s390x-latest.args | 8 +- ...tdev-subsys-mdev-vfio-ap.s390x-latest.args | 4 +- ...ubsys-mdev-vfio-ccw-boot.s390x-latest.args | 4 +- ...othreads-virtio-scsi-ccw.s390x-latest.args | 6 +- ...t-cpu-kvm-ccw-virtio-2.7.s390x-latest.args | 4 +- ...t-cpu-kvm-ccw-virtio-4.2.s390x-latest.args | 9 +- ...t-cpu-tcg-ccw-virtio-2.7.s390x-latest.args | 4 +- ...t-cpu-tcg-ccw-virtio-4.2.s390x-latest.args | 4 +- .../s390x-ccw-graphics.s390x-latest.args | 8 +- .../s390x-ccw-headless.s390x-latest.args | 8 +- .../vhost-vsock-ccw-auto.s390x-latest.args | 8 +- .../vhost-vsock-ccw.s390x-latest.args | 8 +- 17 files changed, 29054 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tests/domaincapsdata/qemu_5.2.0.s390x.xml create mode 100644 tests/qemucapabilitiesdata/caps_5.2.0.s390x.replies create mode 100644 tests/qemucapabilitiesdata/caps_5.2.0.s390x.xml The diff looks sane enough, so
Reviewed-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>
and pushed. Thanks for helping!
Hello Andrea, Thank you for the review:-) Sure, you are welcome:-)
However...
+++ b/tests/qemucapabilitiesdata/caps_5.2.0.s390x.xml @@ -0,0 +1,3300 @@ +<qemuCaps> + <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-s390x</emulator> + <version>5002000</version> + <kvmVersion>0</kvmVersion> + <microcodeVersion>39100243</microcodeVersion> + <package>qemu-5.2.0-20201215.0.ba93e22c.fc32</package> ... the version string seems to indicate you're grabbing the replies from a packaged version rather than a build made from pristine upstream sources: this is consistent with what was done for earlier QEMU capabilities on s390x, but not with how we usually do things for other architectures - see the other caps_5.2.0.*.replies files.
I don't think this is a blocker, because a Fedora-based package will be quite close to upstream anyway, but it would be great if you could generate the replies file again against a QEMU binary that's been built exclusively from upstream sources. You can then submit the update as a follow-up patch - I expect such patch to be fairly small.
The replies are actually generated from the QEMU 5.2.0 binary built exclusively from upstream. This is also true for the other s390 replies generated for the earlier versions of QEMU. I can modify the package name from qemu-5.2.0-20201215.0.ba93e22c.fc32 to qemu-5.2.0, to make it more obvious that it is an upstream version and not a distro package. Would it be ok?
Thanks again for your help getting updated capabilities in libvirt :)
You are welcome:-)
-- Kind regards Shalini Chellathurai Saroja Linux on Z and Virtualization Development Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Gregor Pillen Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294