From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33681) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5pVK-00040f-0Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:23:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5pVG-0005gi-18 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:23:54 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:57938 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5pVF-0005gQ-RN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:23:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:23:42 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Message-ID: <20180410092342.GH5155@redhat.com> Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= References: <20180407000117.25640-1-lersek@redhat.com> <979bd720-cdb3-6468-1fbd-e8ec1c6c6c8d@redhat.com> <8ddd0a2f-b9b1-08c0-0f4d-62e7aea7e96a@redhat.com> <20180410062754.eohou7i7chf6w65j@sirius.home.kraxel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu RFC] qapi: add "firmware.json" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, libvir-list@redhat.com, Alexander Graf , Ard Biesheuvel , David Gibson , Eric Blake , Gary Ching-Pang Lin , Kashyap Chamarthy , Markus Armbruster , Michael Roth , Michal Privoznik , Peter Krempa , Peter Maydell On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:16:01AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 04/10/18 08:27, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> - I considered adding wildcards (say, blacklist "all" i440fx machtypes, > >> present and future, for SMM-requiring OVMF builds), but then you get > >> into version sorting and similar mess. I considered fnmatch() -- > >> basically simple ? and * wildcards -- but that's not expressive enough. > > > > I'd suggest whitelist with wildcards. So the smm builds would get > > "pc-q35-*". > > > > libvirt knows about aliases, so it should be able to handle the "q35" > > shortcut like "pc-q35-${latest}". > > > > Or do you see another issue? > > Well, one issue I see is version sorting; I should say "Q35 but no > earlier than 2.4", and lexicographically, "2.11" sorts before "2.4". > > Anyway (also asking for Thomas's input here): if we run with your idea > to refer to exact mapping methods / firmware *implementation* types that > we know libvirt implements / supports as a "white box", do we still deem > machine type identification necessary? Because, libvirt already knows > (for example) that "ovmf_smm" requires pc-q35-2.4 or later. So we just > have to make a *reference* to that knowledge in the JSON file. > > And, really, this seems to reinforce my point that the schema should > live in the libvirtd tree, not in the QEMU tree. In that case, perhaps > it would be a better fit to work with an XSD, and firmware packages > should install XML files? Personally I'm a lot more attracted to > XML/XSD; I think the tooling is better too. I just don't see how QEMU is > involved. This is defining a set of metadata that is required to use various firmware files in combination with QEMU, along with defining a mapping to QEMU command line arguments and/or features. Essentially, while I wish everyone used libvirt, libvirt is not the only thing that manages QEMU. This information is relevant to anyone managing QEMU, so it doesn't belong in libvirt's realm, it is clear QEMU is best placed to declare this information. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|