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

On 09/07/20 16:38, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > 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 Yes, I remember that -- I remember that we discussed this, and also that you didn't have time for it. Which is entirely justifiable; other stuff has been (and continues to be) more important. For reference, here's the launchpad ticket that tracks the RFE for QEMU: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1826200