On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:01:58PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 02:29:49PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 04:09:40PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > >>Well, after [1] qemu doesn't understand '-object memory-backend-ram' > >>nor '-object memory-backend-file'. Make sure we remove that > >>capabilities from our internal list temporarily, so the qemu command > >>line is constructed in correct way. > >> > >>1: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170093 > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>--- > >> src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 10 ++++--- > >> .../qemuxml2argv-numatune-memnode-rhel650.args | 7 +++++ > >> .../qemuxml2argv-numatune-memnode-rhel650.xml | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c | 4 +++ > >> 4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-numatune-memnode-rhel650.args > >> create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-numatune-memnode-rhel650.xml > >> > >>diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c > >>index 233449b..940f070 100644 > >>--- a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c > >>+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c > >>@@ -3510,6 +3510,11 @@ bool virQEMUCapsIsValid(virQEMUCapsPtr qemuCaps) > >> return sb.st_ctime == qemuCaps->ctime; > >> } > >> > >>+static virQEMUCapsFlags virQEMUCapsMachineRHEL650Filter[] = { > >>+ /* For some reason, rhel6.5.0 machine type doesn't understand memdev. */ > >>+ QEMU_CAPS_OBJECT_MEMORY_RAM, > >>+ QEMU_CAPS_OBJECT_MEMORY_FILE, > >>+}; > >> > >> struct virQEMUCapsMachineTypeFilter { > >> const char *machineType; > >>@@ -3518,9 +3523,8 @@ struct virQEMUCapsMachineTypeFilter { > >> }; > >> > >> static const struct virQEMUCapsMachineTypeFilter virQEMUCapsMachineFilter[] = { > >>- /* { "blah", virQEMUCapsMachineBLAHFilter, > >>- ARRAY_CARDINALITY(virQEMUCapsMachineBLAHFilter) }, */ > >>- { "", NULL, 0 }, > >>+ { "rhel6.5.0", virQEMUCapsMachineRHEL650Filter, > >>+ ARRAY_CARDINALITY(virQEMUCapsMachineRHEL650Filter)}, > >> }; > > > >FWIW, I'd consider this to be something that RHEL downstream RPMs should > >carry, not for upstream. > > > > I'm a bit hesitating on this one. Both have pros and cons. I'd vote > for upstream libvirt working everywhere it can and since the > difference here is not a feature difference, but a bug and the machine > type says clearly "RHEL", it seems like a better option to have it > upstream as well. Any concerns as to why this should be downstream > only? If we accept RHEL specific hacks, then it follows that we should accept hacks for SUSE, Ubuntu, *BSD, etc to work around whatever mistakes they make in their distros too. I don't it is a scalable path for libvirt upstream to take responsibility for fixing every distros' mistakes and don't think RHEL should get a special free pass just because alot of Red Hat people work on libvirt. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list