Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] qemu_passt: Fix issues with PID file

On 2/16/23 8:32 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > This is a v2 of: > > https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2023-February/237731.html > > diff to v1: > - Merged patches that were ACKed in v1, > - Dropped 4/4 from the original series (the one that sets --foreground), >    and implemented a different approach > > Michal Prívozník (5): >    qemu_passt: Avoid double daemonizing passt >    qemu_passt: Report passt's error on failed start >    qemu_passt: Make passt report errors to stderr whenever possible >    qemu_passt: Deduplicate passt killing code >    qemu_passt: Let passt write the PID file This is everything that was in the patch I sent last week, with the following additions 1) adding NULLSTR() around the reference to errbuf in patch 2/5 2) adding "--stderr" to the commandline in patch 3/5 (which I found to be unnecessary in my testing - as Stefano says everything goes to stderr until passt has completed its init anyway) 3) the other bit of patch 3/5 which adds an extra message telling the user to look into the designated logfile for the error - this is unnecessary (and actually now counter-productive, as it forces you to look elsewhere for the error when you wouldn't have needed to) because of patches I've sent to passt. 4)  patch 4/5 that is a cleanup de-duplicating code 5) patch 5 changes additional code (that I didn't touch in my patch) to use virPidFileReadPath() instead of virPidFileReadPathIfLocked(), and virProcessKillPainfully() instead of the higher level virPidFileForceCleanupPath(). So it all seems fine (except the error reporting stuff), but why revert a patch only to push back the same changes in a deconstructed fashion plus some fixups, rather than just posting a followup or two?