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&gt; >> >> 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&gt; >> Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <jjherne(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; >> --- >> 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.