On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 15:27:18 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 4/28/20 1:19 PM, Peter Krempa wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 13:13:32 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote: > > > On a Tuesday in 2020, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > > > On 4/27/20 10:22 PM, tobin wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah fine with me. Thank You. > > > > > > > > > > When it's a positive capability, you don't even need > > > > > virQEMUCapsProbeQMPTCGState, > > > > > you can just add the capability to virQEMUCapsObjectTypes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep. I've went with that. This is now pushed. > > > > > > > > > > Umm, how do you know then if the capability is not missing because the > > > QEMU is too old to support it? > > > > Yeah, when inverting it, the capability should be assumed by a version > > check (yuck) with old qemu. > > > > Yeah, the qemu commit in question is v2.10.0-rc0~93^2~18 and before that it > wasn't possible to compile out TCG. And what do you mean "too old to support > TCG"? Isn't TCG how QEMU started (with adaptation to KVM happening later)? > The oldest mention of TCG that I bothered to find is in > v0.14.0-rc0-936-g303d4e865b which is way older than current minimal 1.5.0 so > I think we are safe, aren't we? Or is there something that I am missing? No, this is the artifact of you taking patches and modifying them and me not checking the pushed code. You correctly added that prior to 2.10 the capability is assumed. I was refering to the need to have such a thing if you want to do a positive capability to prevent regressing with old qemus.
