On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 02:40:07AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 09:54:38AM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote: > > On 11/30/21 06:49, Nathan Vander Wilt wrote: > > > Ah, but it looks like the arm64 -> VIR_ARCH_AARCH64 patch > > > is still in limbo? AFAICT that's the main issue I'm hitting now. > > Unfortunately that's the case. > > > Looking into virArchFromHost() I can see uname() called which is then > > passed to virArchFromString(). In here, uname machine (which is > > equivalent to 'uname -m' from shell) is compared against virArchData array: > > > > https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/blob/master/src/util/virarch.c#L42 > > > > So what you are saying is that 'uname -m' reports arm64 and not aarch64? > > If that's the case then we should revisit the patch you mention. > > Correct: on Apple Silicon Macs the architecture name is reported as > "arm64", but our code expects it to be "aarch64" because that's what > we get on Linux. > > Michal, have you actually looked at the patch mentioned earlier? If > not, you can perhaps do a clean room implementation of the fix based > on the information provided above and get us out of this stalemate? > > It's quite a simple change, but having seen the original patch I feel > like I couldn't possibly submit it myself and still be in the clear.
We're over thinking things here. The way this change is implemented is the only way anyone would write this code, and is a simple cut+paste from the code pattern in the lines above so arguably already a derived work. This is not a bit of code that meets the criteria to taint you from a copyright POV. I just implemented & posted the obvious fix in virArch and it is identical to the patch referenced earlier in this thread, rather proving my point. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
