From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CEDC1FF176
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri,  7 Mar 2025 10:54:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 75A99177B3;
	Fri,  7 Mar 2025 10:54:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <45759946-092e-4b89-bcdb-ec6edc082e11@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:54:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250306104459.1272297-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20250306104459.1272297-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <0e5bf049-0f93-423f-b1b2-c14617f3fb40@proxmox.com>
 <bf081277-b97e-4bcf-b90f-8737e873d038@proxmox.com>
 <02f3ba81-41a4-4f92-a955-067d196ef489@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <02f3ba81-41a4-4f92-a955-067d196ef489@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.022 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 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 2/8] config to command: add one
 '-global' option for each flag
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.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