On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:10:55 -0500, Collin L. Walling wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 11:10 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > We already have a lot of tests that use the ±feature syntax so there's
> > no real need to add another one. However, we could use it as a negative
> > test since s390 does not support the old syntax. So how about:
> >
> > DO_TEST("cpu-s390-features", QEMU_CAPS_KVM,
> > QEMU_CAPS_QUERY_CPU_MODEL_EXPANSION);
> > DO_TEST_FAILURE("cpu-s390-features", QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
> >
> > Of course, patch 5/11 would need to be modified to actually refuse to
> > start an s390 domain with CPU features in the XML on QEMU without
> > QEMU_CAPS_QUERY_CPU_MODEL_EXPANSION capability.
> I agree with not testing for +/- on s390x. And since s390x doesn't
> even support CPU models until 2.8 (which is conveniently when
> query-cpu-model-expac was introduced!), we don't necessarily
> need to do any kind of error checking in the CPU feature
> argument generation code. We will encounter an error
> relating to "no support for CPU models" first.
Oh nice. In that case we should add a domain capabilities test case for
QEMU 2.7.0 to make sure we do not advertise support for any CPU mode.
Jirka
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
