Bug 672211 - Rebase virt-what in RHEL 6.2
Rebase virt-what in RHEL 6.2
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: virt-what (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Richard W.M. Jones
Virtualization Bugs
: Rebase
Depends On:
Blocks: 671510 707524
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2011-01-24 07:20 EST by Richard W.M. Jones
Modified: 2011-12-06 04:57 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6
Doc Type: Rebase: Bug Fixes and Enhancements
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2011-12-06 04:57:47 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Richard W.M. Jones 2011-01-24 07:20:20 EST
Since we're now carrying 18 patches over virt-what 1.3,
we should rebase virt-what in the next release of RHEL (6.2).

virt-what upstream is very conservatively implemented so
that we always present a stable API (and "ABI") to callers.

The main work goes on adding support for new hypervisors.

We now have detailed regression tests for many hypervisors
which should catch regressions upstream.
Comment 2 Richard W.M. Jones 2011-06-20 10:03:52 EDT
No pm-ack, so no rebase ...
Comment 4 Richard W.M. Jones 2011-06-24 06:24:57 EDT

I have pushed this early so that QA can begin on this
package as soon as possible.  NOTE regressions in this
package could also affect subscription-manager!

The rebased virt-what is the same as upstream virt-what 1.11
+ the single patch that was added to git after 1.11 was
released.  In other words, it's the same as upstream git

Upstream git repo:
Upstream tarballs:
Comment 8 Jinxin Zheng 2011-07-22 05:12:07 EDT
virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6.i686/x86_64 on RHEL 6 host.

# virt-what

virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6.i686/x86_64 on RHEL 5 host.

# virt-what
Comment 9 Jinxin Zheng 2011-07-22 05:12:40 EDT
virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6.i686/x86_64 on Xen host.

# virt-what

# virt-what
Comment 10 Jinxin Zheng 2011-07-22 05:13:00 EDT
virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6.i686/x86_64 on ESX 3.5 host.

# virt-what

virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6.i686/x86_64 on ESX 4.0 host.

# virt-what
Comment 11 Jinxin Zheng 2011-07-22 05:13:18 EDT
virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6.i686 on PowerVM x86 world.

# virt-what
Comment 12 Jinxin Zheng 2011-07-22 05:13:37 EDT
virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6.s390x on SystemZ (s390x-6s-v1.ss.eng.bos.redhat.com).

# virt-what
Comment 13 Jinxin Zheng 2011-07-22 05:14:13 EDT
Hyper-V host environment is being setting up. It should be done within 1 or 2 days.
Comment 14 Richard W.M. Jones 2011-07-22 05:22:03 EDT
(In reply to comment #9)
> virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6.i686/x86_64 on Xen host.
> PV:
> # virt-what
> xen

This one is wrong.  Assuming this is a RHEL 6 guest
(domU) running on a Xen hypervisor, the output should be:

# virt-what

Can you double-check this one?

If it's still failing, can you give me some more details
of the Xen host:

Is it RHEL 5?
Is it Citrix Xen?
Can I get a login to this guest?
Comment 15 Jinxin Zheng 2011-07-22 06:15:53 EDT
I re-checked it. Still no 'xen-domU', either 32 or 64 guest.

It's RHEL6, not RHEL5 or Citrix.
Comment 16 Richard W.M. Jones 2011-07-22 06:28:05 EDT
Thanks for checking this again.

I had a look at this guest, and of course being RHEL 6.1 it's
using pv_ops.  This is in fact a known bug / shortcoming in
virt-what (see [1]).  We don't know how to tell the difference
between dom0 and domU with pv_ops kernels -- it's probably doable
but we don't know how.

So don't worry about this test.  As long as it prints 'xen'
we're OK.

[1] http://git.annexia.org/?p=virt-what.git;a=blob;f=virt-what.in;h=4f381ab4c38cd9d38861a0fbfe764d2c5d5c59b4;hb=HEAD#l190
Comment 17 Jinxin Zheng 2011-07-25 00:56:34 EDT
virt-what-1.11-1.1.el6.i686/x86_64 on Hyper-V.

# virt-what

Now all the hypervisors and guests are tested, moving this to VERIFIED.
Comment 18 errata-xmlrpc 2011-12-06 04:57:47 EST
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.