Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH trivial] configure: explicitly disable virtfs if softmmu=no

["M. Mohan Kumar" <mohan@in.ibm.com>]

Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> writes:

> 11.06.2013 21:23, M. Mohan Kumar wrote:
>> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>> 
>> How about this approach?
>
> Well, this is definitely wrong :)
>
>> -if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then
>> -  if test "$virtfs" != no ; then
>> +
>> +if test "$virtfs" != no ; then
>> +  if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then
>>      if test "$cap" = yes && test "$linux" = yes && test "$attr" = yes ; then
>>        virtfs=yes
>>        tools="$tools fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper\$(EXESUF)"
>> @@ -3415,6 +3416,12 @@ if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then
>>        fi
>>        virtfs=no
>>      fi
>> +  else
>> +    if test "$virtfs" = yes; then
>> +      error_exit "VirtFS is supported only on Linux and requires softmmu"
>> +    else
>> +     virtfs=no
>> +    fi
>>    fi
>>    if [ "$linux" = "yes" -o "$bsd" = "yes" -o "$solaris" = "yes" ] ; then
>>      if [ "$guest_agent" = "yes" ]; then
>
> Now this "if [ $linux..." test is only checked
> if $virtfs != no.  Before, it was checked when
> $softmmu != no...
My bad :(, I missed check for guest_agent inside softmmu case.

>
> FWIW, I still don't understand what Peter Maydell dislikes
> in a simplest case I posted initially, where we merely ignore
> (disable) virtfs in case !softmmu.  We should probably do the
> same for alot of other features which makes sense only if
> softmmu==yes, and omit many configure tests which are still
> done even if softmmu is disabled, but that's a different
> patch for sure.  Maube we should separate out this last linux|bsd|solaris
> test and add another if softmmu there, for readability, so that
> disabling of virtfs will be closer to other virtfs tests.
>
> I applied my initial patch to our debian tree to fix build
> failure for now, because else it fails during build.
>
> Thanks,
>
> /mjt