Re: [PATCH for-7.0] hw: Add compat machines for 7.0

[Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 03:29:13PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17 2021, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:13:55AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 08 2021, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Add 7.0 machine types for arm/i440fx/q35/s390x/spapr.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  hw/arm/virt.c              |  9 ++++++++-
> >> >  hw/core/machine.c          |  3 +++
> >> >  hw/i386/pc.c               |  3 +++
> >> >  hw/i386/pc_piix.c          | 14 +++++++++++++-
> >> >  hw/i386/pc_q35.c           | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >> >  hw/ppc/spapr.c             | 15 +++++++++++++--
> >> >  hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> >> >  include/hw/boards.h        |  3 +++
> >> >  include/hw/i386/pc.h       |  3 +++
> >> >  9 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> 
> >
> >
> >> > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
> >> > index 223dd3e05d15..b03026bf0648 100644
> >> > --- a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
> >> > +++ b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
> >> > @@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ static void pc_i440fx_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> >      machine_class_allow_dynamic_sysbus_dev(m, TYPE_VMBUS_BRIDGE);
> >> >  }
> >> >  
> >> > -static void pc_i440fx_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> > +static void pc_i440fx_7_0_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> >  {
> >> >      PCMachineClass *pcmc = PC_MACHINE_CLASS(m);
> >> >      pc_i440fx_machine_options(m);
> >> > @@ -422,6 +422,18 @@ static void pc_i440fx_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> >      pcmc->default_cpu_version = 1;
> >> >  }
> >> >  
> >> > +DEFINE_I440FX_MACHINE(v7_0, "pc-i440fx-7.0", NULL,
> >> > +                      pc_i440fx_7_0_machine_options);
> >> > +
> >> > +static void pc_i440fx_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> > +{
> >> > +    pc_i440fx_machine_options(m);
> >
> > Needs to be pc_i440fx_7_0_machine_options()
> >
> >> > +    m->alias = NULL;
> >> > +    m->is_default = false;
> >> > +    compat_props_add(m->compat_props, hw_compat_6_2, hw_compat_6_2_len);
> >> > +    compat_props_add(m->compat_props, pc_compat_6_2, pc_compat_6_2_len);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> >  DEFINE_I440FX_MACHINE(v6_2, "pc-i440fx-6.2", NULL,
> >> >                        pc_i440fx_6_2_machine_options);
> >> >  
> >> > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_q35.c b/hw/i386/pc_q35.c
> >> > index e1e100316d93..6b66eb16bb64 100644
> >> > --- a/hw/i386/pc_q35.c
> >> > +++ b/hw/i386/pc_q35.c
> >> > @@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ static void pc_q35_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> >      m->max_cpus = 288;
> >> >  }
> >> >  
> >> > -static void pc_q35_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> > +static void pc_q35_7_0_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> >  {
> >> >      PCMachineClass *pcmc = PC_MACHINE_CLASS(m);
> >> >      pc_q35_machine_options(m);
> >> > @@ -368,6 +368,17 @@ static void pc_q35_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> >      pcmc->default_cpu_version = 1;
> >> >  }
> >> >  
> >> > +DEFINE_Q35_MACHINE(v7_0, "pc-q35-7.0", NULL,
> >> > +                   pc_q35_7_0_machine_options);
> >> > +
> >> > +static void pc_q35_6_2_machine_options(MachineClass *m)
> >> > +{
> >> > +    pc_q35_machine_options(m);
> >
> > Needs to be pc_q35_7_0_machine_options()
> >
> >> > +    m->alias = NULL;
> >> > +    compat_props_add(m->compat_props, hw_compat_6_2, hw_compat_6_2_len);
> >> > +    compat_props_add(m->compat_props, pc_compat_6_2, pc_compat_6_2_len);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> >  DEFINE_Q35_MACHINE(v6_2, "pc-q35-6.2", NULL,
> >> >                     pc_q35_6_2_machine_options);
> >> >  
> >> 
> >> So, this apparently causes some problems with one of the avocado tests:
> >> 
> >> 162-tests/avocado/x86_cpu_model_versions.py:X86CPUModelAliases.test_4_1_alias -> AssertionError: None != 'Cascadelake-Server-v1' : Cascadelake-Server must be an alias of Cascadelake-Server-v1
> >> 
> >> (full output at https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/jobs/1893456217)
> >> 
> >> I have looked at the patch again and do not see what might be wrong (has
> >> something changed with the cpu model versioning recently?)
> >> 
> >> Does anyone else (especially the x86 folks) have an idea?
> >
> > AFAICT, just a typo in chaining up the methods I've pointed out inline.
> 
> Duh, indeed. Thanks for spotting this.
> 
> Will send a v2.
> 
>

/me wonders if this patch could be generated with a "simple" script in
order to avoid typos and/or forgetting lines. It seems like all
architectures have pretty consistent patterns.

Thanks,
drew