On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 15:27:18 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 4/28/20 1:19 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 13:13:32 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
> > On a Tuesday in 2020, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > > On 4/27/20 10:22 PM, tobin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah fine with me. Thank You.
> > > >
> > > > When it's a positive capability, you don't even need
> > > > virQEMUCapsProbeQMPTCGState,
> > > > you can just add the capability to virQEMUCapsObjectTypes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yep. I've went with that. This is now pushed.
> > >
> >
> > Umm, how do you know then if the capability is not missing because the
> > QEMU is too old to support it?
>
> Yeah, when inverting it, the capability should be assumed by a version
> check (yuck) with old qemu.
>
Yeah, the qemu commit in question is v2.10.0-rc0~93^2~18 and before that it
wasn't possible to compile out TCG. And what do you mean "too old to support
TCG"? Isn't TCG how QEMU started (with adaptation to KVM happening later)?
The oldest mention of TCG that I bothered to find is in
v0.14.0-rc0-936-g303d4e865b which is way older than current minimal 1.5.0 so
I think we are safe, aren't we? Or is there something that I am missing?
No, this is the artifact of you taking patches and modifying them and me
not checking the pushed code.
You correctly added that prior to 2.10 the capability is assumed. I was
refering to the need to have such a thing if you want to do a positive
capability to prevent regressing with old qemus.