----- "Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues" <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 18:10 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> userspace > > >> > > >> Current method may or may not work for various kinds of > > >> distribution. So this patch enable the ability to use customized > > >> commands to get the version of kvm and its userspace. > "kvm_ver_cmd" is > > >> used for kvm verison and "kvm_userspace_ver_cmd" is for its > userspace. > > >> > > > > > > The method we are currently using is pretty satisfactory - if we > fail > > > in getting /sys/module/kvm/version we use the kernel version as a > > > fallback, which is good for the kernel module. For qemu, we make > a > > > regular expression searching for numbers following the string > version, > > > so I don't see a reason on why we should make it configurable. > Care to > > > provide an example of a situation where the current method fails? > > > > > > > > Current method may be not as accurate as we expected. > > In my Fedora box, the output of qemu-kvm -h | head -n 1 is something > like: > > QEMU PC emulator version 0.9.1 (kvm-83-maint-snapshot-20090205), > > Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard > > but the rpm -qa may tell more accurate version: > > qemu-kvm-0.11.0-13.fc12.x86_64 > > The above version of qemu looks like the one shipped in RHEL 5.X, not > Fedora, you might have mistaken the versions. Here is what it looks > on: > > Fedora 11: > > [r...@localhost ~]# qemu-kvm -help | head -1 > QEMU PC emulator version 0.11.0 (qemu-kvm-0.11.0), Copyright (c) > 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard > [r...@localhost ~]# rpm -qa | grep qemu-kvm > qemu-kvm-0.11.0-13.fc12.x86_64 > > Fedora 13: > > [...@freedom ~]$ qemu-kvm -h | head -1 > QEMU PC emulator version 0.12.3 (qemu-kvm-0.12.3), Copyright (c) > 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard > [...@freedom ~]$ rpm -qa | grep qemu-kvm > qemu-kvm-0.12.3-8.fc13.x86_64 > > Moreover, we deal with several build methods, qemu-kvm might have not > be > installed through rpm, so we have to use a single method to figure > out > the versions. Another point is that, if we run such alternate methods > (such as git build, or brew build) we will have reliable versioning > that > can be extracted from the build logs. > > My decision is we keep the current method of determining the version. > The current method we have is fairly reliable (though obviously not > perfect) in my opinion, and it can be applied pretty much for all > branches. > > I would really like that we start embedding version control (git) > information somewhere installing binaries, to make things easier for > people bisecting issues, but not sure what the maintainers would > think > about this. > Thanks for the detailed explanation here, I think I've missed the possibility of building form source. I agree that we keep the current method. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
