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 403811FF176 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:06:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 28ACC17DA9; Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:06:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <590e5331-b0c6-4998-bafe-6efbdb8c64a6@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:05:30 +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> <45759946-092e-4b89-bcdb-ec6edc082e11@proxmox.com> <fe820c37-c0fe-4035-b94b-9d35d30529d2@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <fe820c37-c0fe-4035-b94b-9d35d30529d2@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.021 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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 3/7/25 11:00, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 07.03.25 um 10:54 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> 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? > > It avoids the need for the variable to collect and passing it around and > to remember adding future ones to that variable too. > > It doesn't make a difference from QEMUs perspective, but would slightly > improve readability for humans looking at the commandline. > > Note that I already suggested collecting all in the variable as an > approach above. I just want to avoid the mishmash. OK, which approach would you prefer? (I don't have a strong feeling in either direction and doing the cleanup now seems to not be a lot of work) _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel