Am 07.03.25 um 10:54 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > On 3/6/25 13:55, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 06.03.25 um 13:15 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>> On 3/6/25 13:13, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>>> Am 06.03.25 um 11:44 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>>>> If we have multiple 'globalFlags', we have to encode each one >>>>> separately >>>>> on the commandline with '-global OPTION', since QEMU does not allow to >>>>> have multiple options here. >>>>> >>>>> We currently only have one such flag that used the 'globalFlags' list, >>>>> so it never popped up. (All other uses directly add an option to the >>>>> commandline) >>>>> >>>>> Avoid future bugs by fixing it now. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So there is no real point to collecting the flags in the first place? >>>> I.e. we could also get rid of the variable and have the single current >>>> user of the variable add the flag directly on the commandline too. Or >>>> otherwise, we could change the other users and collect all flags with >>>> this variable. Pre-existing of course, but ideally, we could avoid the >>>> mishmash. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry this could have been more clear here: >>> I add to the flags in one of the following patches, so i sent this >>> in preparation of that (could possibly be squashed) >> >> Yes, I understand that. I still think the status quo with mixing two >> different approaches might not be best. It's not going to be a blocker >> for the series, but I wanted to mention it, if you want to go for >> avoiding it. >> >>> I did not want to touch the other places, since that in turn changes >>> the order of the qemu commandline (which sometimes has unintended side >>> effects, e.g. in combination with the 'args' parameter) >> >> Are you sure? Custom 'args' are always added last so that shouldn't >> matter. >> >> The only thing that would change by removing the global flags variable >> is having "-global kvm-pit.lost_tick_policy=discard" earlier in the >> commandline. I think that should be fine. In particular QEMU's >> qemu_init() function has a call to user_register_global_props() which >> handles all global properties at the same time, so I think changing the >> order should be fine in (almost?) all cases. > > I'll test that, but imho it would better to do the reverse here? > So don't interject '-gloabl' parameters throughout config2command, but > add them to the globalFlags and output them together at the end? > > we'd have to touch the same number of tests i think, but it seems less > confusing to me (also in the resulting commandline we'd have all > global options together then) > > Or is there a better argument for injecting the global parameters > in the middle?
It avoids the need for the variable to collect and passing it around and to remember adding future ones to that variable too. It doesn't make a difference from QEMUs perspective, but would slightly improve readability for humans looking at the commandline. Note that I already suggested collecting all in the variable as an approach above. I just want to avoid the mishmash. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
