On 11/30/21 11:40, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 09:54:38AM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote: >> On 11/30/21 06:49, Nathan Vander Wilt wrote: >>> Ah, but it looks like the arm64 -> VIR_ARCH_AARCH64 patch >>> is still in limbo? AFAICT that's the main issue I'm hitting now. > > Unfortunately that's the case. > >> Looking into virArchFromHost() I can see uname() called which is then >> passed to virArchFromString(). In here, uname machine (which is >> equivalent to 'uname -m' from shell) is compared against virArchData array: >> >> https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/blob/master/src/util/virarch.c#L42 >> >> So what you are saying is that 'uname -m' reports arm64 and not aarch64? >> If that's the case then we should revisit the patch you mention. > > Correct: on Apple Silicon Macs the architecture name is reported as > "arm64", but our code expects it to be "aarch64" because that's what > we get on Linux. > > Michal, have you actually looked at the patch mentioned earlier? If > not, you can perhaps do a clean room implementation of the fix based > on the information provided above and get us out of this stalemate? > > It's quite a simple change, but having seen the original patch I feel > like I couldn't possibly submit it myself and still be in the clear. > Unfortunately I did. But I think the whole area can be reworked a bit so that we would detect both arm64 and aarch64 but in a different way than the original patch. Michal
