On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 12:41 +0100, Shalini Chellathurai Saroja wrote:
On 12/17/20 12:19 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 10:10 +0100, Shalini Chellathurai Saroja wrote:
+++ 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.
So how are you actually building the binary? Because if you just clone the upstream repository and run the usual ./configure && make inside it, the version number will not look like that... The presence of .fc32 specifically seems to indicate a .spec file is involved in some capacity. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization