On Mon, 2018-10-15 at 11:46 +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 09:05:16AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > Interesting. What is the output of 'virsh capabilities'?
>
> In attachment.
Looks reasonable enough.
> > More interesting still is the fact that the guest XML you
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 09:05:16AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
[...]
> Interesting. What is the output of 'virsh capabilities'?
In attachment.
> More interesting still is the fact that the guest XML you shared
> looks like an *active* XML, ie. one taken from a running guest...
> Does that
On Mon, 2018-10-15 at 08:21 +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 02:28:07PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > If I had to guess, I would say the element of your guest
> > is probably pointing to a custom-built QEMU 2.11 binary rather than
> > the default one installed from
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 02:28:07PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 22:38 +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
[...]
> > Now check the machine type again. Bizarrely enough, libvirt "helpfully"
> > auto-adds QEMU *2.11* machine type, which is obviously no longer on the
> >
On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 22:38 +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> Context: The baremetal host previously had QEMU 2.11. But I manually
> downgraded the QEMU version (via `dnf downgrade qemu-system-x86`); now
> it is at 2.10:
>
> $ rpm -q qemu-system-x86
> qemu-system-x86-2.10.2-1.fc27.x86_64
Context: The baremetal host previously had QEMU 2.11. But I manually
downgraded the QEMU version (via `dnf downgrade qemu-system-x86`); now
it is at 2.10:
$ rpm -q qemu-system-x86
qemu-system-x86-2.10.2-1.fc27.x86_64
The guest is offline. Let's see (in a couple of ways) what machine
