On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 16:34:32 -0400, Jason J. Herne wrote: > From: "Collin L. Walling" <walling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <jjherne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > 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. Jirka -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list