Re: [libvirt PATCH 00/10] Cleanup and test more firmware handling scenarios

On 2/16/22 8:17 AM, Michal Prívozník wrote: > On 2/15/22 19:54, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> There are a mind bending number of possible ways to configure the >> firmware with/without NVRAM. Only a small portion are tested and >> many error scenarios are silently ignored. >> >> This series attempts to get coverage of every possible XML config >> scenario and report explicit errors in all invalid configs. >> >> There is an open question on patch 4. Essentially the use of NVRAM >> combined with writable executable feels like an accidental feature >> in libvirt that hasn't really been thought through. I'd like to >> better define expectations here but there are several possible >> strategies and I'm undecided which is best. >> >> Daniel P. Berrangé (10): >> qemu: fix bad indentation for qemuDomainNVRAMPathFormat >> tests: add explicit test case for pflash loader lacking path >> tests: add test case for NVRAM with template >> conf: validate NVRAM template usage with R/W loader binary >> tests: don't permit NVRAM path when using firmware auto-select >> qemu: inline code for filling in per-VM NVRAM path >> conf: rename struct field for NVRAM template >> conf: switch nvram parsing to use XML node / property helpers >> conf: move nvram parsing into virDomainLoaderDefParseXML >> conf: stop ignoring <loader>/<nvram> with firmware auto-select >> >> > > Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Michal > I don't see the last 3 patches in git. Daniel was that intentional?