On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:18:20 +0100 Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/30/20 10:38 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 27/11/2020 16.02, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> --- src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
} else if (virQEMUCapsGet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_S390)) {
Not related to your patch, but an idea for a future clean-up: That QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_S390 seems to belong to the ancient "s390-virtio" (without ccw) machine that has been removed in QEMU v2.6 already:
https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=7b3fdbd9a82 https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=3538fb6f89d
IIRC, that machine was already considered as deprecated since a couple of earlier QEMU releases, so I really doubt that anybody is still using that in production today.
Thus I think that all code related to QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_S390 could likely be removed from libvirt nowadays.
That is even better idea. But currently libvirt supports QEMU-1.5.0 and newer. So I think we shouldn't remove that until the minimum version is bumped even though we think feature has no users.
https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/commit/c1bc9c662b4
Although, it might be about time to look again what is the oldest QEMU we need to support.
Would be great if you could bump it enough to get rid of the old virtio-s390 transport :) FWIW, virtio-ccw was introduced in QEMU 1.4, and became the default with QEMU 2.4, although it had supplanted virtio-s390 well before that. What are the criteria for possibly removing support for a feature in libvirt: that nobody would use it in practice, or that nobody would be able to use it?