* Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for June 21
2011-06-21 13:56 ` Avi Kivity
@ 2011-06-21 14:27 ` Markus Armbruster
2011-06-21 14:28 ` Avi Kivity
2011-06-21 15:08 ` Frédéric Grelot
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Markus Armbruster @ 2011-06-21 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Avi Kivity
Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues, KVM devel mailing list, quintela,
qemu-devel, Justin M. Forbes
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> writes:
> On 06/21/2011 04:50 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 06/21/2011 06:28 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 06/20/2011 10:42 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>>> Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689672 - Guests do not start
>>> after upgrading qemu to 0.13
>>>
>>> Seems like our backward compatibility plan isn't working. How do we
>>> address it? How do we test it?
>>
>> f13 is ancient, no?
>
> Yes, a year old.
>
> Furthermore, Justin tells me it carries a lot downstream patches.
>
>>
>> I'm not sure what this particular issue is, but is this doing -M pc-0.12?
>>
>
> It has its own machine type. So this report may not indicate any
> problem with upstream.
>
> Still, I feel we have a potential problem here. We identify
> guest-visible attributes just by review; we're sure to miss something
> here and there. Unlike ordinary bugs, compatibility problems only
> show up later and are much harder to fix.
>
> Second, we don't do any tests in this area that I'm aware of. Lucas,
> what would it take (thanks, you're most kind) to test multiple qemus
> in a single run?
>
> We can have a script that runs lspci -vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv, x86info,
> and other interesting stuff and compare the results, and also system
> tests that boot a guest on multiple qemus (with the same -M and
> different -M) and see if things work.
Suggest to compare info qtree as well.
> We can probably continue on email, I don't see a real need for a call
> for this topic.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for June 21
2011-06-21 14:27 ` Markus Armbruster
@ 2011-06-21 14:28 ` Avi Kivity
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-06-21 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Armbruster
Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues, KVM devel mailing list, quintela,
qemu-devel, Justin M. Forbes
On 06/21/2011 05:27 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >
> > We can have a script that runs lspci -vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv, x86info,
> > and other interesting stuff and compare the results, and also system
> > tests that boot a guest on multiple qemus (with the same -M and
> > different -M) and see if things work.
>
> Suggest to compare info qtree as well.
Good idea. Also the memory map, when the memory API is there.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for June 21
2011-06-21 13:56 ` Avi Kivity
2011-06-21 14:27 ` Markus Armbruster
@ 2011-06-21 15:08 ` Frédéric Grelot
2011-06-21 16:07 ` Anthony Liguori
2011-06-21 16:58 ` Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Frédéric Grelot @ 2011-06-21 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: qemu-devel, KVM devel mailing list
> > f13 is ancient, no?
>
> Yes, a year old.
>
Furthermore, the following mail was sent to the Fedora announce mailing list just one week ago :
This is a reminder email about the end of life process for Fedora 13.
Fedora 13 will reach end of life on 2011-06-24, and no further updates
will be pushed out after that time. Additionally, with the recent
release of Fedora 15, no new packages will be added to the Fedora 13
collection.
Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistributionUpgrades for more
information on upgrading from Fedora 13 to a newer release.
kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for June 21
2011-06-21 13:56 ` Avi Kivity
2011-06-21 14:27 ` Markus Armbruster
2011-06-21 15:08 ` Frédéric Grelot
@ 2011-06-21 16:07 ` Anthony Liguori
2011-06-21 16:58 ` Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2011-06-21 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Avi Kivity
Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues, quintela, qemu-devel, Justin M. Forbes,
KVM devel mailing list
On 06/21/2011 08:56 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/21/2011 04:50 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> We can have a script that runs lspci -vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv, x86info, and
> other interesting stuff and compare the results, and also system tests
> that boot a guest on multiple qemus (with the same -M and different -M)
> and see if things work.
I think a simple tool that dumped as much info as possible in a
diff'able format would be useful not only within guests but also in bare
metal.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>
> We can probably continue on email, I don't see a real need for a call
> for this topic.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for June 21
2011-06-21 13:56 ` Avi Kivity
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-06-21 16:07 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2011-06-21 16:58 ` Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues @ 2011-06-21 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: KVM devel mailing list, quintela, Justin M. Forbes, qemu-devel
On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 16:56 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/21/2011 04:50 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 06/21/2011 06:28 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 06/20/2011 10:42 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >>> Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689672 - Guests do not start
> >> after upgrading qemu to 0.13
> >>
> >> Seems like our backward compatibility plan isn't working. How do we
> >> address it? How do we test it?
> >
> > f13 is ancient, no?
>
> Yes, a year old.
>
> Furthermore, Justin tells me it carries a lot downstream patches.
>
> >
> > I'm not sure what this particular issue is, but is this doing -M pc-0.12?
> >
>
> It has its own machine type. So this report may not indicate any
> problem with upstream.
>
> Still, I feel we have a potential problem here. We identify
> guest-visible attributes just by review; we're sure to miss something
> here and there. Unlike ordinary bugs, compatibility problems only show
> up later and are much harder to fix.
>
> Second, we don't do any tests in this area that I'm aware of. Lucas,
> what would it take (thanks, you're most kind) to test multiple qemus in
> a single run?
I have thought about it, people have asked about this in the past.
Here's my implementation idea:
1) Turn qemu to be a configurable option very much like images, cdroms,
nics, etc, such as:
qemu_binary_upstream = '/path/1'
qemu_binary_rhel6 = '/path/2'
...
qemu_binary_n = '/path/n'
So people in need of testing multiple qemus can set them and have them
all track down by autotest
2) Add support in the build test for building multiple user spaces
3) Make qemu_binary to be a VM param. This way if we need to change the
userspace a given VM uses, just update the params and start the vm
again. Noticing different params, the VM will be restarted using the
alternate userspace.
I will start to work on this right now. It'll probably take a couple of
weeks for a first patchset, but it's high time we get this implemented,
since there are several uses for it.
> We can have a script that runs lspci -vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv, x86info, and
> other interesting stuff and compare the results, and also system tests
> that boot a guest on multiple qemus (with the same -M and different -M)
> and see if things work.
>
> We can probably continue on email, I don't see a real need for a call
> for this topic.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread