From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Target vs architecture for QEMU binary
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:43:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150909144329.GP22200@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1441786654.14506.35.camel@redhat.com>
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:17:34AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 16:47 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > Or we could just query everything that looks like a QEMU
> > > binary and then lookup the correct one for the guest based
> > > on the query results, couldn't we? Again, assuming such
> > > interface even exists.
> >
> > I'd prefer libvirt to not have a trawl through every QEMU
> > binary to do this really.
>
> AFAIK we're already querying every binary for other stuff
> we're interested in, so adding one more query shouldn't
> change anything. Or am I missing something?
In all the other cases we already know which binary we need
to query. We happen to cache the results of querying binaries
we find in $PATH, but none of our code has a fixed assumption
that we have caps available for every single binary. I don't
want such an assumption to get baked into libvirt code,
because it will limit our flexibility to change the way we
probe / cache capabilities data later, if we have a requirement
to always query every binary upfront.
> > > I'm not sure they're covering all possible combinations,
> > > though. Which is why it would be really nice to be able to
> > > ask this stuff to QEMU itself.
> >
> > So, I think what we need do is to just refactor the
> > virQEMUCapsFindBinaryForArch(), to pull out the
> > architecture canonocalization out into a separate
> > method eg virArch virQEMUCapsCanonicalSystemArch(virArch)
> > and then just call it from both places
>
> Sounds reasonable. Are we sure we have a complete
> understanding of the relationship between targets and
> architectures, though? For example, I don't see anything
> about s390, and the ARM stuff doesn't look like it covers
> everything. I just want to make sure we're not doing
> anything wrong or missing any possible combination.
Yeah, we've just added exceptions on an as-nedeed basis, so we could
well need more special cases added
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 :|
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-09 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-08 13:27 [Qemu-devel] Target vs architecture for QEMU binary Andrea Bolognani
2015-09-08 14:37 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2015-09-08 15:34 ` Andrea Bolognani
2015-09-08 15:47 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2015-09-09 8:17 ` Andrea Bolognani
2015-09-09 14:43 ` Daniel P. Berrange [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150909144329.GP22200@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=abologna@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).