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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E9A460488 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:53:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5469D1C228 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:53:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 id 44E6F1C21B for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:53:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 165BC45DB4 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:53:25 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Reiter References: <20201006133218.25403-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com> <20201006133218.25403-5-s.reiter@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: <9e9dff0a-bb1c-0a4c-94af-7536fd11b168@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:53:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:82.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/82.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201006133218.25403-5-s.reiter@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.378 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.019 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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 v2 qemu-server 4/7] fix #3010: add 'bootorder' parameter for better control of boot devices 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: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:53:26 -0000 On 06.10.20 15:32, Stefan Reiter wrote: > @@ -3213,17 +3210,30 @@ sub config_to_command { > push @$devices, '-device', $kbd if defined($kbd); > } > =20 > + my $bootorder =3D {}; > + my $boot =3D parse_property_string($boot_fmt, $conf->{boot}) if $c= onf->{boot}; Seeing just now, never declare a variable conditionally, this is dangerou= s in perl, like a lot! If the check above fails, the variable will operate with the = value it was last set too, and not be undef. You added this pattern also when doing the RNG stuff, so it's clearly som= ething you're not aware off but like to use. Please stop doing so, as this led u= s already once to a long bug hunt, which I'd like to avoid again. > + if (!defined($boot) || $boot->{legacy}) { > + $bootorder =3D bootorder_from_legacy($conf, $boot); > + } elsif ($boot->{order}) { > + # start at 100 to allow user to insert devices before us with -args > + my $i =3D 100; > + for my $dev (PVE::Tools::split_list($boot->{order})) { > + $bootorder->{$dev} =3D $i++; > + } > + } > +