From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BC9F919B3 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 15:22:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F1D061C652 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 15:22:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 15:22:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1E620446D4 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 15:22:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <2d073550-d5ed-391a-a5c9-076208829a52@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 15:22:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20221216133655.510957-1-d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com> <20221216133655.510957-4-d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com> <1671620408.1e4qgx6uw7.astroid@yuna.none> <1671714998.zcf0qv7i9n.astroid@yuna.none> From: Daniel Tschlatscher In-Reply-To: <1671714998.zcf0qv7i9n.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.460 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.148 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server v3 3/5] await and kill lingering KVM thread when VM start reaches timeout X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 14:22:45 -0000 On 12/22/22 14:20, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > On December 22, 2022 1:58 pm, Daniel Tschlatscher wrote: > >>>> >>>> - my $exitcode = run_command($cmd, %run_params); >>>> - if ($exitcode) { >>>> - if ($tpmpid) { >>>> - warn "stopping swtpm instance (pid $tpmpid) due to QEMU startup error\n"; >>>> - kill 'TERM', $tpmpid; >>>> + eval { >>>> + my $exitcode = run_command($cmd, %run_params); >>>> + >>>> + if ($exitcode) { >>>> + if ($tpmpid) { >>>> + log_warn "stopping swtpm instance (pid $tpmpid) due to QEMU startup >>> error\n"; >>> >>> this warn -> log_warn change kind of slipped in, it's not really part of this >>> patch? >> >> Because I changed this line anyway, I changed it to log_warn as it is >> imported already and, as I understood, the preferable alternative >> to calling 'warn'. >> Sourcing this in it's own patch seems overkill to me, or would you >> rather suggest something like this should be handled in, e.g. a >> file-encompassing refactoring? > > ideally it could be sent as cleanup patch up-front (then it can be applied even > if the rest needs another round ;)) or at least mentioned somewhere (e.g., in > the patch notes). seemingly unrelated changes in a patch always make me wary that > the patch was generated from some unclean tree/more or less than intended was > `git add`ed. in this case my guess was that you just changed that (wrapped) call > site to match your newly introduced ones, but it could also have been an > unintentional search+replace result, for example, so I'd rather ask :) As the v2 still used the 'warn' calls, I mentioned it under the "Changes from v2" section. 'Changed warn to use 'log_warn' instead'. (Albeit wasn't at my best with this wording here) > > > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel > >