Re: [PATCH] docs: Discourage users from using fwcfg

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: >>> Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it >>> missed my patches: users should prefer <oemStrings/> over fwcfg. >>> The reason is that fwcfg is considered somewhat internal to QEMU >>> and it has limited number of slots and neither of these applies >>> to <oemStrings/>. >>> >>> While I'm at it, I'm fixing the example too (because it contains >>> incorrect element name) and clarifying sysfs/ exposure. >>> >>> 1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-May/msg00957.html >>> >>> Reported-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> --- >>> docs/formatdomain.rst | 14 +++++++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> > > >> It's nice that you say that, but people who would like to use fw_cfg for >> passing >> in a huge blob, which is saved in a file, will read this, go to >> <oemStrings/> >> and see that there is no way to pass a file as an input.  Should that be >> dealt >> with somehow?  Or would that be discouraged as well? > > Unfortunately, QEMU doesn't allow reading OEM strings from a file (at least > quick glance over hw/smbios/smbios.c doesn't show any signs it's allowed). Indeed, that is an RFE I've never got around to