On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 17:05 +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 09:53:59 -0500, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 08:13 +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 14:51:12 -0500, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
Since the cirrus vga memory size isn't configurable, we can ignore any 'vram' attribute when parsing a domain definition. However, when no value is specified, it ends up getting set to a default value of 16MB. This 16MB value is not used anywhere (for example, it is not passed as an argument to qemu), but is displayed in the XML definition. So by changing this default value to 0, it will also be omitted from the XML definition of the domain.
Fixes: rhbz#1447831
Please always use the full link so that it's clickable and users don't have to figure out what 'rhbz' is.
Signed-off-by: Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma@redhat.com> --- This is an attempt to apply the fix suggested by Gerd at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447831#c2. I'm not totally confident that this is the right approach, since I'm relatively new to the code. Another approach might be to simply close the bug as NOTABUG since it doesn't seem that having this unused attribute in the domain definition has any significant drawbacks.
We certainly should not set any default if it's not used. There's not much else we can do though as we did put a default into the configuration.
I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting here. This sentence seems to imply that you think we should *not* set a default, but down below you say that you're not certain whether we should clear the default? It seems a bit contradictory, but perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding.
I actually meant 'clearing the memory size', thus basically just omitting the whole second hunk of your patch. So any previously set value would be kept intact.
Clearing it itself is not a problem for libvirt but might be potentially unexpected by higher level management apps. But I'm not really sure whether't that's a valid case.
I'm starting to wonder if I'm not falling into the trap of only thinking about things from a qemu/kvm perspective. It looks like a cirrus device can also be used in the libxl driver, and perhaps it is configurable under that hypervisor? I don't have any experience there. In that case, maybe it's safest to simply drop this patch and close the bug as WONTFIX. Any thoughts? Jonathon