On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 03:43:41PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
On a Tuesday in 2023, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 03:19:45PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
> > On a Tuesday in 2023, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > That's already the case in practice, but it's a better
> > > experience for the user if we reject this configuration
> > > outright instead of silently ignoring part of it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna(a)redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > src/conf/domain_validate.c | 9 +++++++++
> > > ...t-user-slirp-portforward.x86_64-latest.err | 1 +
> > > .../net-user-slirp-portforward.xml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c | 1 +
> > > 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644
tests/qemuxml2argvdata/net-user-slirp-portforward.x86_64-latest.err
> > > create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/net-user-slirp-portforward.xml
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko(a)redhat.com>
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> Right before pushing, I realized that VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR is
> probably not the best fit for this scenario. Are you okay with me
> squashing in the changes below?
Yes.
VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED = 67, /* unsupported configuration
construct (Since: 0.7.3) */
We also use VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR in similar cases,
but I'm not sure whether it's more fitting, given its description:
VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR = 27, /* an XML description is not well
formed or broken (Since: 0.1.1) */
Yeah, not quite clear-cut, but XML_ERROR seems more suitable for a
situation where the XML is structurally incorrect (e.g. <disk> nested
inside <interface> or something like that) as opposed to simply
trying to enable a set of features that don't work well together.
I'll stick with CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization