On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 14:32 +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote: > On 10/22/19 1:39 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 10:55 +0200, Shalini Chellathurai Saroja wrote: > > > .../domaincapsschemadata/qemu_4.1.0.s390x.xml | 221 + > > > tests/domaincapstest.c | 4 + > > > .../caps_4.1.0.s390x.replies | 22171 ++++++++++++++++ > > > .../qemucapabilitiesdata/caps_4.1.0.s390x.xml | 3272 +++ > > > 4 files changed, 25668 insertions(+) > > > > Can you please do 4.2.0 instead? Jirka is working on a patch series > > that will use a feature introduced in the upcoming QEMU release, and > > it would be useful to test it on s390x along with all the other > > architectures. > > > > Note that it's fine to just use the latest commit on master for now > > and only later, once QEMU 4.2.0 is our, post a much smaller patch > > that contains just the differences. > > > We can do the (pre) 4.2.0 on s390x in addition to the 4.1.0 version. In > that way when backporting a matching qemu version is available.
I'm not against having 4.1.0 replies per se, but I just don't see much value in adding them at this point. As mentioned in a previous message, we generally only add replies when doing so improves test coverage: in the case of QEMU 4.1.0, it looks like they were originally introduced to test CPU feature translation, which AFAICT is x86-only; accordingly, we only have x86_64 replies for that QEMU release. I can see the value in having replies for 4.2.0 on s390x; replies for 4.1.0 look to me like they would only add a few hundred KiBs to the repository and release archives for no real benefit. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
