Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] (updated) additional parameters needed for dnsmasq

On 08/22/2012 11:47 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/22/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 08/22/2012 10:59 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: >>> As I said in a previous message, dnsmasq is forwarding a number of >>> queries upstream that should not be done. There still remains an MX >>> query for a plain name with no domain specified that will be forwarded >>> is dnsmasq has --domain=xxx --local=/xxx/ specified. This does not >>> happen with no domain name and --local=// ... not a libvirt problem. >>> >> ACK and pushed with the above tweak, and with adding you to AUTHORS (let >> us know if you prefer any other spelling or email address; the file is >> in UTF-8). > Oh, and now that I've already pushed, I have a high-level question: what > is the minimum version of 'dnsmasq' that supports the command-line > syntax that this patch introduces? > > +--local=// --domain-needed --filterwin2k \ > > If older dnsmasq doesn't recognize --local=// or the new --domain-needed > or --filterwin2k options, then we either need to make this code > conditional based on probing 'dnsmasq --help' at startup, or else change > the spec file to require a larger minimum version of dnsmasq (we already > require 2.41 for other reasons). Just as I feared, we introduced a regression: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854137 Apparently, --filterwin2k disables features needed by Windows guests. Gene, what is the benefit vs. cost of adding this flag? I'm trying to figure out whether we need to expose it as something user-configurable, or whether we should just revert back to the pre-patch version that did not supply that option.