On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 12:41 +0100, Shalini Chellathurai Saroja wrote: > On 12/17/20 12:19 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 10:10 +0100, Shalini Chellathurai Saroja wrote: > > > +++ b/tests/qemucapabilitiesdata/caps_5.2.0.s390x.xml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,3300 @@ > > > +<qemuCaps> > > > + <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-s390x</emulator> > > > + <version>5002000</version> > > > + <kvmVersion>0</kvmVersion> > > > + <microcodeVersion>39100243</microcodeVersion> > > > + <package>qemu-5.2.0-20201215.0.ba93e22c.fc32</package> > > > > ... the version string seems to indicate you're grabbing the replies > > from a packaged version rather than a build made from pristine > > upstream sources: this is consistent with what was done for earlier > > QEMU capabilities on s390x, but not with how we usually do things for > > other architectures - see the other caps_5.2.0.*.replies files. > > > > I don't think this is a blocker, because a Fedora-based package will > > be quite close to upstream anyway, but it would be great if you could > > generate the replies file again against a QEMU binary that's been > > built exclusively from upstream sources. You can then submit the > > update as a follow-up patch - I expect such patch to be fairly small. > > The replies are actually generated from the QEMU 5.2.0 binary built > exclusively > from upstream. This is also true for the other s390 replies generated for > the earlier versions of QEMU. So how are you actually building the binary? Because if you just clone the upstream repository and run the usual ./configure && make inside it, the version number will not look like that... The presence of .fc32 specifically seems to indicate a .spec file is involved in some capacity. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
