[libvirt] [REPOST PATCH] tests: Update x86_64 replies, caps to QEMU 2.12

[Boris Fiuczynski]

On 05/16/2018 06:30 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/16/2018 11:09 AM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:52:56AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>>> Using a QEMU 2.12 tagged tree build and full build, used:
>>>
>>> tests/qemucapsprobe /home/qemu/x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 > \
>>>      tests/qemucapabilitiesdata/caps_2.12.0.x86_64.replies
>>>
>>> VIR_TEST_REGENERATE_OUTPUT=1 tests/qemucapabilitiestest
>>> VIR_TEST_REGENERATE_OUTPUT=1 tests/domaincapstest
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan at redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   Reposting :
>>>
>>>    https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-May/msg00738.html
>>>
>>>   with recent updates through commit id fe8a0679
>>
>> I need to finish the work on adding some exact steps or possible docker
>> image to regenerate capabilities.
> 
> But aren't some of the responses better tied to native hardware rather
> than virtualized (which I'm assuming a docker image may provide)?
> Especially the CPU ones and as seen from the s390x patch on list the
> response from qemuMonitorJSONGetKVMState.
> 
>>
>> I would create a rule that if someone is updating replies files they
>> should check whether the CPU changes are only because of different host
>> CPU or whether there is some actual change.  In the first case they
>> should not be part of the patch, it just pollutes the diff with
>> unnecessary changes.
> 
> If we had/used the same, native box for each iteration of the
> capabilities files, then sure this probably would be easier unless
> someone (other than me ;-)) wants to mock a "fully featured" response.
> 
> What we don't want to do is commit the emulated results, which I believe
> was done in the last go around - check the s390x results for the
> GetKVMState reply (libvirt-7) compared to what's posted upstream from
> real hardware yesterday by Shalini.
> 
> I also don't think it's "right" to edit whatever CPU response one gets
> just because it's run on different hardware just so we can avoid
> polluting the diff.  Again, back to my previous points - same, native
> hardware or better mocking...
> 
>>
>> Additional note related to the first paragraph, I don't thing that we
>> need to include "xen" related things in replies since they are not used
>> by QEMU driver.
>>
> 
> I was wondering why those xen* things showed up - perhaps because my
> environment included the xen-devel package... After removing, yep those
> go away...  I could post another version, but it sounds like this isn't
> desired anyway - so I won't pursue it too much.  Just figured it would
> be better to have 2.12 instead of 2.11.90 in the caps/replies that we
> store. The details of CPU differences seem to always be a given. We
> don't "filter" the initial posting based on it so requiring any update
> posted by someone using different hardware would seem to be overkill
> especially since it doesn't really seem to matter.
> 
> John
> 
> BTW: It also seems spice* type flags/bits only show up in certain
> environments - so that perhaps too could be considered for some sort of
> mocking.  Something that's different between the s390x results posted
> upstream as well as the x86_64 results I created.
Isn't the spice capability depending on how the qemu binary was build?

> 
> --
> libvir-list mailing list
> libvir-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
> 


-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Kind regards
    Boris Fiuczynski

IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Köderitz
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294