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 0F3AAE03E for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:55:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DC8FA30695 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:55:19 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:55:19 +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 1AF41446A8 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:55:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:55:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:108.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/108.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Noel Ullreich References: <20221206131138.221400-1-n.ullreich@proxmox.com> <20221206131138.221400-3-n.ullreich@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20221206131138.221400-3-n.ullreich@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.106 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 -0.27 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [qemuserver.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 2/2] catch missing ovmf file 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: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 15:55:50 -0000 Am 06/12/2022 um 14:11 schrieb Noel Ullreich: > check to see if the OVMF_VARS file actually exists. otherwise lines > 3666 and 3673 break and give a cryptic error message I do not think that referencing lines in the commit message is helpful, rather just describe it in general, e.g., ".. otherwise subsequent code breaks with cryptic errors" > > Signed-off-by: Noel Ullreich > --- > PVE/QemuServer.pm | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > index 2a2f1f7..38f3145 100644 > --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm > +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > @@ -3640,6 +3640,7 @@ sub config_to_command { > > my ($ovmf_code, $ovmf_vars) = get_ovmf_files($arch, $d, $q35); > die "EFI base image '$ovmf_code' not found\n" if ! -f $ovmf_code; > + die "EFI vars image '$ovmf_vars' not found\n" if ! -f $ovmf_vars; why not move this check into the get_ovmf_files sub then, so that it's in a central place? If we need to skip checking in some place (we shouldn't), one could just add a $nocheck parameter to the helper for opting-out. I mean, qemu-server's dependency on "pve-edk2-firmware" should already avoid this error in the first place anyway... > > my ($path, $format); > my $read_only_str = '';