On 6/3/20 10:40 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 10:27:57 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 6/3/20 9:31 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
QEMU added the machine types for the 5.1 release so let's update them.
Other notable changes are 'cpu-throttle-tailslow' migration property,
'zlib' compression for qcow2 images and absrtact socket support.
Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
As usual, I'll be refreshing this until the release so that we always
have fresh capabilities to prevent any surprises with deprecation and
big updates.
.../domaincapsdata/qemu_5.1.0-q35.x86_64.xml | 2 +-
.../domaincapsdata/qemu_5.1.0-tcg.x86_64.xml | 2 +-
tests/domaincapsdata/qemu_5.1.0.x86_64.xml | 2 +-
.../caps_5.1.0.x86_64.replies | 357 +++++++++++-------
.../caps_5.1.0.x86_64.xml | 14 +-
5 files changed, 237 insertions(+), 140 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
Maybe we can have another rule that would allow you to push these without
review? I can argue both ways, so I'm just putting it out there.
Yeah. I thought about that too.
Specifically one thing I'd like to avoid is carelessness in case of the
update. Specifically if there is some form of removal (flag being
removed and such) we need to be careful and consider the implications.
Well, for that we would need to compare with older capabilities XML and
I don't think we are doing that. Removal between the same capabilities
XML of an unreleased QEMU are uncommon. But I hear what you're saying
and that's my concern too.
In this very specific case there's nothing of note and I'd be okay with
just pushing it, but the rules if we wanted to codify it somehow would
require to be more nuanced and I don't think I can express all the
caveats.
That's why I didn't really argue for adding a special rule for this.
Also one reason I'm doing periodic upgrades of this is so that others
don't have to do it. The problem here is that the output is very much
dependent on the machine where you run it and I don't want others to
have to update the files when adding a new capability as the difference
becomes unreviewable and may even regress depending on how qemu is
built.
This is a long known issue and perhaps it would be worth documenting
somewhere? I think these are QEMU binaries taken from Fedora, is that
so? Maybe we can document configure arguments for QEMU so that it is
reproducible.
Michal
