On 02/13/2012 07:32 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:22:09 -0700, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 01/30/2012 09:25 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote: >>> In qemu there are 2 cpu models (cpu64-rhel5 and cpu64-rhel6) not >>> supported by libvirt. This patch adds the support with the flags >>> specifications from /usr/share/qemu-kvm/cpu-model/cpu-x86_64.conf >> Is it going to be an issue where we use libvirt on something like F16 >> where qemu does not have these machine names? Or is it okay for libvirt >> to have a larger list of machine names, to make out-of-box installation >> of newer libvirt onto older RHEL/CentOS machines just work with those >> new names? > > It was designed to be okay. Libvirt checks what CPU models are supported by > qemu and avoids passing unsupported models to qemu. After all, we support > running libvirt with older releases of qemu (we don't force their git HEAD). True enough. > >> Should this be a RHEL-specific patch for just the RHEL version of >> libvirt, rather than upstream? > > I think having this patch in is better than the opposite :-) Allowing > RHEL/CentOS users to install newer libvirt without losing functionality is > nice and we already did so in the past: > > commit ff88cd590572277f10ecee4ebb1174d9b70fc0d7 > Author: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed Jan 25 21:33:21 2012 -0700 > > qemu: support qmp on RHEL/CentOS qemu Sure, use my own patch against me to make your point :) All right, I think we're in agreement: ACK to applying this one. Even though the machine names are specific only to the RHEL port of qemu, it is a common enough user base that it is worth supporting in out-of-the-box libvirt installs, rather than relegating this patch to only the RHEL backport of libvirt. -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list