[libvirt] [PATCH v2 02/17] qemu: remove all support for kQEMU

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:11:16AM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:06:21 -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 11/09/2015 09:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > The kQEMU accelerator was deleted in QEMU 0.12, so we no
> > > longer need to support it in the QEMU driver.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 18 ------------------
> > >  src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> > >  src/qemu/qemu_command.c      | 23 ++---------------------
> > >  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > 
> > > @@ -1103,10 +1089,6 @@ virQEMUCapsComputeCmdFlags(const char *help,
> > >      const char *p;
> > >      const char *fsdev, *netdev;
> > >  
> > > -    if (strstr(help, "-no-kqemu"))
> > > -        virQEMUCapsSet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_KQEMU);
> > > -    if (strstr(help, "-enable-kqemu"))
> > > -        virQEMUCapsSet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_ENABLE_KQEMU);
> > >      if (strstr(help, "-no-kvm"))
> > >          virQEMUCapsSet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
> > >      if (strstr(help, "-enable-kvm"))
> > 
> > Question for the entire series: anywhere that libvirt 1.2.21 has a
> > capability set, and a running domain, the XML for that domain tracks the
> > capability name; if we then upgrade to libvirt 1.3.0 that does not even
> > track the capability, won't trying to parse the XML will throw up its
> > hands about an unknown capability?  Do we need to revisit how we are
> > handling deletion of capabilities to make sure it does not interfere
> > with libvirtd upgrades while managing a running domain?
> 
> Even libvirt 1.3.0 still knows about the capabilities, they are prefixed
> with X_ in the enum and the corresponding strings are still in place,
> and they will be recognized when parsing capabilities from both cache
> and status XMLs. We just never check for such capabilities anywhere in
> the code. That said, I think we're fine with upgrades.

Yeah, that's exactly why I didn't delete any of the capability flags
from the enum, just renamed the constant to show it shouldn't be used
in the code.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|