"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:29:16PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:18:16PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 01:56:40PM +0100, arm...@redhat.com wrote: >> > > From: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> > > >> > > Currently, we get SeaBIOS defaults: manufacturer Bochs, product Bochs, >> > > no version. Best SeaBIOS can do, but we can provide better defaults: >> > > manufacturer QEMU, product & version taken from QEMUMachine desc and >> > > name. >> > > >> > > Take care to do this only for new machine types, of course. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> > >> > I feel applying this one would be a mistake. >> > >> > Machine desc is for human readers. >> > For example, it currently says "Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009)" >> > but if we add a variant with IDE compatibility mode we will likely want to >> > tweak it to say "Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9/AHCI mode, 2009)" >> > and add another one saying ""Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9/compat mode, >> > 2009)". >> > >> > In other words we want the ability to tweak >> > description retroactively, and exposing it to guest will >> > break this ability. >> > >> > So we really need a new field not tied to the human description. >> > >> >> You have a point, but if we do that one day, then we can add a new >> smbios-specific field and set it for each of the existing machine-types >> so they keep the same ABI. This patch doesn't make us unable to do that >> in the future. > > We'll likely forget and just break guest ABI. > So we really need a unit test for this, too.
More tests are good, but we I think we got bigger fish to fry than writing tests to catch changes that are so obviously foolish as messing with old machine type's QEMUMachine. >> As we are past hard freeze, I think this simple patch is better than a >> more complex solution for a problem we still don't have (that can still >> be implemented in 1.8). > > I don't see why we need to rush this into 1.7. > Downstreams want their info in smbios for support, branding etc, > but I don't see a burning need for this in upstream QEMU. > It's kind of nice to have it say "QEMU", but we can afford to > delay and do it properly for 1.8. Define "properly". I don't see what I'd like to do differently for 1.8.
