Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 2/8] config to command: add one '-global' option for each flag

[Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>]

On 3/6/25 13:55, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 06.03.25 um 13:15 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> On 3/6/25 13:13, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>>> Am 06.03.25 um 11:44 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>>>> If we have multiple 'globalFlags', we have to encode each one separately
>>>> on the commandline with '-global OPTION', since QEMU does not allow to
>>>> have multiple options here.
>>>>
>>>> We currently only have one such flag that used the 'globalFlags' list,
>>>> so it never popped up. (All other uses directly add an option to the
>>>> commandline)
>>>>
>>>> Avoid future bugs by fixing it now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So there is no real point to collecting the flags in the first place?
>>> I.e. we could also get rid of the variable and have the single current
>>> user of the variable add the flag directly on the commandline too. Or
>>> otherwise, we could change the other users and collect all flags with
>>> this variable. Pre-existing of course, but ideally, we could avoid the
>>> mishmash.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry this could have been more clear here:
>> I add to the flags in one of the following patches, so i sent this
>> in preparation of that (could possibly be squashed)
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I still think the status quo with mixing two
> different approaches might not be best. It's not going to be a blocker
> for the series, but I wanted to mention it, if you want to go for
> avoiding it.
> 
>> I did not want to touch the other places, since that in turn changes
>> the order of the qemu commandline (which sometimes has unintended side
>> effects, e.g. in combination with the 'args' parameter)
> 
> Are you sure? Custom 'args' are always added last so that shouldn't matter.
> 
> The only thing that would change by removing the global flags variable
> is having "-global kvm-pit.lost_tick_policy=discard" earlier in the
> commandline. I think that should be fine. In particular QEMU's
> qemu_init() function has a call to user_register_global_props() which
> handles all global properties at the same time, so I think changing the
> order should be fine in (almost?) all cases.

I'll test that, but imho it would better to do the reverse here?
So don't interject '-gloabl' parameters throughout config2command, but
add them to the globalFlags and output them together at the end?

we'd have to touch the same number of tests i think, but it seems less
confusing to me (also in the resulting commandline we'd have all
global options together then)

Or is there a better argument for injecting the global parameters
in the middle?


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel