6:52 a.m.
Depends on the first two (ACKed) patches from:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-February/msg00662.html
Patch 4/5 Rename boot_buf to boot_opts
was dropped. In this version, only one virBuffer is used
and just the strings are separate.
Ján Tomko (2):
Make -boot arg generation more readable
Use virBufferTrim when generating boot options
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
--
2.0.5
6:52 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [PATCHv2 1/2] Make -boot arg generation more readable
If we combine the boot order on the command line with other
boot options, we prepend order= in front of it.
Instead of checking if the number of added arguments is between
0 and 2, separate the strings for boot order and options
and prepend boot order only if both strings are not empty.
---
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
index 736e285..b504461 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
@@ -8213,6 +8213,7 @@ qemuBuildCommandLine(virConnectPtr conn,
virArch hostarch = virArchFromHost();
virQEMUDriverConfigPtr cfg = virQEMUDriverGetConfig(driver);
virBuffer boot_buf = VIR_BUFFER_INITIALIZER;
+ char *boot_order_str = NULL, *boot_opts_str = NULL;
int boot_nparams = 0;
VIR_DEBUG("conn=%p driver=%p def=%p mon=%p json=%d "
@@ -8778,7 +8779,9 @@ qemuBuildCommandLine(virConnectPtr conn,
boot[def->os.nBootDevs] = '\0';
virBufferAsprintf(&boot_buf, "%s", boot);
- boot_nparams++;
+ if (virBufferCheckError(&boot_buf) < 0)
+ goto error;
+ boot_order_str = virBufferContentAndReset(&boot_buf);
}
if (def->os.bootmenu) {
@@ -8834,23 +8837,23 @@ qemuBuildCommandLine(virConnectPtr conn,
virBufferAddLit(&boot_buf, "strict=on");
}
- if (boot_nparams > 0) {
- virCommandAddArg(cmd, "-boot");
+ if (virBufferCheckError(&boot_buf) < 0)
+ goto error;
- if (virBufferCheckError(&boot_buf) < 0)
- goto error;
+ boot_opts_str = virBufferContentAndReset(&boot_buf);
+ if (boot_order_str || boot_opts_str) {
+ virCommandAddArg(cmd, "-boot");
- if (boot_nparams < 2 || emitBootindex) {
- virCommandAddArgBuffer(cmd, &boot_buf);
- virBufferFreeAndReset(&boot_buf);
- } else {
- char *str = virBufferContentAndReset(&boot_buf);
- virCommandAddArgFormat(cmd,
- "order=%s",
- str);
- VIR_FREE(str);
+ if (boot_order_str && boot_opts_str) {
+ virCommandAddArgFormat(cmd, "order=%s,%s",
+ boot_order_str, boot_opts_str);
+ } else if (boot_order_str) {
+ virCommandAddArg(cmd, boot_order_str);
+ } else if (boot_opts_str) {
+ virCommandAddArg(cmd, boot_opts_str);
}
}
+ VIR_FREE(boot_opts_str);
if (def->os.kernel)
virCommandAddArgList(cmd, "-kernel", def->os.kernel, NULL);
@@ -10342,6 +10345,7 @@ qemuBuildCommandLine(virConnectPtr conn,
return cmd;
error:
+ VIR_FREE(boot_order_str);
virBufferFreeAndReset(&boot_buf);
virObjectUnref(cfg);
/* free up any resources in the network driver
--
2.0.5
6:52 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [PATCHv2 2/2] Use virBufferTrim when generating boot options
Instead of tracking the number of added parameters,
add a comma at the end of each one unconditionally
and trim the trailing one at the end.
---
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 27 ++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
index b504461..9da3c06 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
@@ -8214,7 +8214,6 @@ qemuBuildCommandLine(virConnectPtr conn,
virQEMUDriverConfigPtr cfg = virQEMUDriverGetConfig(driver);
virBuffer boot_buf = VIR_BUFFER_INITIALIZER;
char *boot_order_str = NULL, *boot_opts_str = NULL;
- int boot_nparams = 0;
VIR_DEBUG("conn=%p driver=%p def=%p mon=%p json=%d "
"qemuCaps=%p migrateFrom=%s migrateFD=%d "
@@ -8786,13 +8785,10 @@ qemuBuildCommandLine(virConnectPtr conn,
if (def->os.bootmenu) {
if (virQEMUCapsGet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_BOOT_MENU)) {
- if (boot_nparams++)
- virBufferAddChar(&boot_buf, ',');
-
if (def->os.bootmenu == VIR_TRISTATE_BOOL_YES)
- virBufferAddLit(&boot_buf, "menu=on");
+ virBufferAddLit(&boot_buf, "menu=on,");
else
- virBufferAddLit(&boot_buf, "menu=off");
+ virBufferAddLit(&boot_buf, "menu=off,");
} else {
/* We cannot emit an error when bootmenu is enabled but
* unsupported because of backward compatibility */
@@ -8809,11 +8805,8 @@ qemuBuildCommandLine(virConnectPtr conn,
goto error;
}
- if (boot_nparams++)
- virBufferAddChar(&boot_buf, ',');
-
virBufferAsprintf(&boot_buf,
- "reboot-timeout=%d",
+ "reboot-timeout=%d,",
def->os.bios.rt_delay);
}
@@ -8825,17 +8818,13 @@ qemuBuildCommandLine(virConnectPtr conn,
goto error;
}
- if (boot_nparams++)
- virBufferAddChar(&boot_buf, ',');
-
- virBufferAsprintf(&boot_buf, "splash-time=%u",
def->os.bm_timeout);
+ virBufferAsprintf(&boot_buf, "splash-time=%u,",
def->os.bm_timeout);
}
- if (virQEMUCapsGet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_BOOT_STRICT)) {
- if (boot_nparams++)
- virBufferAddChar(&boot_buf, ',');
- virBufferAddLit(&boot_buf, "strict=on");
- }
+ if (virQEMUCapsGet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_BOOT_STRICT))
+ virBufferAddLit(&boot_buf, "strict=on,");
+
+ virBufferTrim(&boot_buf, ",", -1);
if (virBufferCheckError(&boot_buf) < 0)
goto error;
--
2.0.5
8:17 a.m.
On 02/25/2015 07:52 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
Depends on the first two (ACKed) patches from:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-February/msg00662.html
Patch 4/5 Rename boot_buf to boot_opts
was dropped. In this version, only one virBuffer is used
and just the strings are separate.
Ján Tomko (2):
Make -boot arg generation more readable
Use virBufferTrim when generating boot options
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
ACK both
If I understand the rules of the road correctly... Since the original
series was reviewed prior to the freeze and this just adjust that, it
seems reasonable to say it's OK for freeze...
John
9:40 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:17:27 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
On 02/25/2015 07:52 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
...
>
ACK both
If I understand the rules of the road correctly... Since the original
series was reviewed prior to the freeze and this just adjust that, it
seems reasonable to say it's OK for freeze...
Actually I'd rather not codify that as a rule. After the freeze
everythling should be re-evaluated if it makes sense actually to push.
Purpose of the freeze is not to limit new features appearing but have a
line where stuff that is likely to break the comming release in any way
to be limited.
If you get a review for a big feature prior to the freeze and then send
a few patches after the freeze it will not make them automagically
appear in the RC-package or any less likely to break the release.
I think only fixes that target code that was touched in the last devel
cycle or fix a obvious bug in a common path should be taken, otherwise
we might as well as not have any freeze.
Peter
9:54 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:40:00PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:17:27 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> On 02/25/2015 07:52 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
...
> >
>
> ACK both
>
> If I understand the rules of the road correctly... Since the original
> series was reviewed prior to the freeze and this just adjust that, it
> seems reasonable to say it's OK for freeze...
Actually I'd rather not codify that as a rule. After the freeze
everythling should be re-evaluated if it makes sense actually to push.
Purpose of the freeze is not to limit new features appearing but have a
line where stuff that is likely to break the comming release in any way
to be limited.
If you get a review for a big feature prior to the freeze and then send
a few patches after the freeze it will not make them automagically
appear in the RC-package or any less likely to break the release.
I think only fixes that target code that was touched in the last devel
cycle or fix a obvious bug in a common path should be taken, otherwise
we might as well as not have any freeze.
Yep, any ack'd features really should be pushed before the freeze starts.
If they miss that then they ought to wait in general, as we frequently
see that new feature patches break the build on Win32 or BSD platforms,
and validating those platforms is the main point of having a freeze.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
10:28 a.m.
On 02/25/2015 10:40 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:17:27 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> On 02/25/2015 07:52 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
...
>>
>
> ACK both
>
> If I understand the rules of the road correctly... Since the original
> series was reviewed prior to the freeze and this just adjust that, it
> seems reasonable to say it's OK for freeze...
Actually I'd rather not codify that as a rule. After the freeze
everythling should be re-evaluated if it makes sense actually to push.
Purpose of the freeze is not to limit new features appearing but have a
line where stuff that is likely to break the comming release in any way
to be limited.
If you get a review for a big feature prior to the freeze and then send
a few patches after the freeze it will not make them automagically
appear in the RC-package or any less likely to break the release.
I think only fixes that target code that was touched in the last devel
cycle or fix a obvious bug in a common path should be taken, otherwise
we might as well as not have any freeze.
Hmm.. perhaps let me clarify my thoughts... These are bug fix patches
which I had differentiated in my mind compared to patches for some
feature addition when I wrote the above.
Whether as a general rule of thumb we as a group adhere to your last
paragraph regarding last devel cycle perhaps has a lot more to do with
the ability to provide timely patch reviews when everyone is trying to
submit patches to "beat" the freeze date and performing fewer reviews
until after that date (especially in this global development cycle where
times and dates are relative to your location).
For this sequence of patches, the original patches were posted 2/18... I
reviewed 2/23... Freeze 2/24... These changes were posted 2/25 as a
reaction to review comments. Could they wait - sure... But it seems they
are no less safe/harmful than some other patches taken after freezes in
my historical recollection...
John
10:34 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:40:00PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:17:27 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> On 02/25/2015 07:52 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
...
> >
>
> ACK both
>
> If I understand the rules of the road correctly... Since the original
> series was reviewed prior to the freeze and this just adjust that, it
> seems reasonable to say it's OK for freeze...
The original series was fixing a bug (-bootloader appearing on QEMU
command line), but I didn't consider it important enough to push the
already ACKed patches before sending another version of this cleanup.
These two patches have no functional change, they aren't needed in this
release.
Actually I'd rather not codify that as a rule. After the freeze
everythling should be re-evaluated if it makes sense actually to push.
Purpose of the freeze is not to limit new features appearing but have a
line where stuff that is likely to break the comming release in any way
to be limited.
Actually, I always thought it was a feature freeze. Merging a new
feature usually is more likely to break something than not.
If you get a review for a big feature prior to the freeze and then
send
a few patches after the freeze it will not make them automagically
appear in the RC-package or any less likely to break the release.
If the feature was merged before the freeze, then the followup patches
are fixing bugs in it, aren't they? :)
I think only fixes that target code that was touched in the last
devel
cycle or fix a obvious bug in a common path should be taken, otherwise
we might as well as not have any freeze.
Fixes in less common paths should be taken too if they're serious
enough.
Either way, I'm bookmarking this thread.
Jan
3559
days inactive
3559
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
John Ferlan -
Ján Tomko -
Peter Krempa