On 06/22/2018 05:01 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 22.06.2018 um 16:38 hat Christian Borntraeger geschrieben: >> >> >> On 06/22/2018 04:25 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> Am 22.06.2018 um 15:36 hat Christian Borntraeger geschrieben: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06/22/2018 02:55 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>>>> Am 22.06.2018 um 13:38 hat Christian Borntraeger geschrieben: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 06/15/2018 04:21 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>>>>>> The -drive option serial was deprecated in QEMU 2.10. It's time to >>>>>>> remove it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tests need to be updated to set the serial number with -global instead >>>>>>> of using the -drive option. >>>>>> >>>>>> libvirt 4.5 still creates those (at least on s390x) >>>>>> >>>>>> <disk type='file' device='disk'> >>>>>> <driver name='qemu' type='qcow2' cache='none' io='native' iothread='1'/> >>>>>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/image.zhyp137'/> >>>>>> <target dev='hda' bus='virtio'/> >>>>>> <serial>skel</serial> >>>>>> <boot order='1'/> >>>>>> <address type='ccw' cssid='0xfe' ssid='0x0' devno='0x0000'/> >>>>>> </disk> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> -drive file=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/image.zhyp137,format=qcow2,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk0,serial=skel,cache=none,aio=native -device virtio-blk-ccw,iothread=iothread1,scsi=off,devno=fe.0.0000,drive=drive-virtio-disk0,id=virtio-disk0,bootindex=1,write-cache=on >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> 2018-06-22T11:25:20.946024Z qemu-system-s390x: -drive file=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/image.zhyp137,format=qcow2,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk0,serial=skel,cache=none,aio=native: Block format 'qcow2' does not support the option 'serial' >>>>>> 2018-06-22 11:25:21.098+0000: shutting down, reason=failed >>>>>> >>>>>> So it seems that this breaks s390x. >>>> >>>> To me it seems that this is also broken on x86. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for bringing this up. libvirt should fix this before QEMU 3.0 is >>>>> released. >>>> >>>> I think this is definitely too short notice. We should not break existing >>>> setups just by insisting that users have to update libvirt when they update >>>> QEMU. Yes, this might be our policy, but doing so "just because we can" >>>> is certainly a very bad attitude. I see no fundamental technical reason why >>>> we should not revert this change. >>> >>> This was in fact one release longer than our deprecation policy says. >>> Are we serious about the deprecation policy or aren't we? >> >> I think it makes more sense to have 2 releases after everything was fixed >> instead of 2 releases after it was announced. > > This means effectively banning feature removal. The only time that > people actually starting fixing things is when it breaks. So if you > never remove it before everything is fixed, you just never remove it at > all. With the proposal that is floating around (like the --no-deprecation option to be used for regression test suites) this could be solved. > > It's unfortunate, but breaking things at some point is necessary. I hope > the breakage will only last a few days because libvirt will fix this. > > Maybe one thing we could look into for the future is a special > deprecation warning function rather than just error_report(), and we > would make that one fatal in non-release builds so that things break > early, but you can still override it with a ./configure option. > >> So if everyone has adopted we can certainly follow our deprecation policy. >> Now if deprecation breaks some real world cases it makes no sense to >> "insist" on that deprecation policy. Really: If latest greatest libvirt >> does not work 2 weeks before soft freeze I consider this too late. >> >> Why: This breaks MY regression test setup before softfreeze. So I will stop >> testing qemu in the most critical point in time. >> >> If you would come up with your statement (taking deprecation policy more >> serious than users) in the Linux kernel I can pretty much guarantee that >> Linus would call you names. > > Users shouldn't use random git snapshots. Developers can revert the > change locally until libvirt is fixed.g > > If contrary to all expectations, libvirt doesn't manage to get this > fixed until 3.0-rc2, I will consider reverting the patch. But not > significantly earlier than that. I think I made it clear that I consider this wrong on so many levels. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
