From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73DF81FF16B for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:24:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BF6CA2F338; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:24:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:24:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20250812100009.1613204-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Language: de-DE, en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1756203844349 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.029 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] [RFC PATCH qemu-server] pci: add 'keep-driver' option 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 26/08/2025 12:15, Dominik Csapak wrote: > of course, i did not do it for an RFC because i did not expect it to go > in like this without discussion/refining anyway. the next version That's fine, especially here where it's doesn't changes anything, for things with much change it might be even nice to have a test for an RFC, as then one sees what changes here; but I mostly mentioned the test as a general reminder for everyone, because we all sometimes forget adding one even though it's rather cheap to do so. > will have cfg2command tests (though it does not change anything on > the command line currently, so the tests will just test that the config > is parseable) That's fine for now. We might want to expand cfg2cmd to test more side-effects that should, or should not, happen. That could also be a separate test harness that is just derived from cfg2cmd, to avoid making it overly complex, but just to air out some thoughts, as that is definitively nothing for this series and probably quite a bit more work. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel