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

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).