On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 11:11:08AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > 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. Not only that, we could set up an upstream fedora VM following those steps (not just steps but the overall HW setup to unify the whole process) and generating the capabilities whenever new qemu is tagged in git. Of course, sometimes you need them earlier than an RC is tagged, but still, I think it would be beneficial to automate this process by setting up the agent in a way it would send a patch/MR against libvirt. If it turns out this to be desirable from upstream libvirt POV, I can set up such an upstream runner. Erik
