"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[email protected]> writes: > * Markus Armbruster ([email protected]) wrote: >> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[email protected]> >> > >> > Commit ee5d0f89de3e53cdb0dc added range checking on reboot-timeout >> > to only allow the range 0..65535; however both qemu and libvirt document >> > the special value -1 to mean don't reboot. >> > Allow it again. >> > >> > Fixes: ee5d0f89de3e53cdb0dc ("fw_cfg: Fix -boot reboot-timeout error >> > checking") >> > RH bz: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765443 >> > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <[email protected]> >> > --- >> > hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c | 5 +++-- >> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c >> > index 7dc3ac378e..1a9ec44232 100644 >> > --- a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c >> > +++ b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c >> > @@ -247,10 +247,11 @@ static void fw_cfg_reboot(FWCfgState *s) >> > >> > if (reboot_timeout) { >> > rt_val = qemu_opt_get_number(opts, "reboot-timeout", -1); >> > + >> > /* validate the input */ >> > - if (rt_val < 0 || rt_val > 0xffff) { >> > + if (rt_val < -1 || rt_val > 0xffff) { >> > error_report("reboot timeout is invalid," >> > - "it should be a value between 0 and 65535"); >> > + "it should be a value between -1 and 65535"); >> > exit(1); >> > } >> > } >> >> Semantic conflict with "PATCH] qemu-options.hx: Update for >> reboot-timeout parameter", Message-Id: >> <[email protected]>. > > Thanks for spotting that. > I think Han and also submitted patches to review it from libvirt > and it wasn't obvious what to do. (Cc'd Han in). > >> I'm too tired right now to risk an opinion on which one we want. > > As is everyone else ! The problem here is that its documented > as a valid thing to do, and libvirt does it, and you might have > a current XML file that did it. Now I think you could change libvirt > to omit the reboot-timeout parameter if it was called with -1. > > So given its a documented thing in both qemu and libvirt xml > if we want to remove it then it sohuld be deprecated properly - but it's > already broken.
Since commit ee5d0f89d, v4.0.0. If that commit had not made it into a release, we'd certainly treat the loss of "-1 means don't reboot" as regression. But it has. We can treat it as a regression anyway. We can also declare "ship has sailed". I'm leaning towads the former. If we restore "-1 means don't reboot", then I don't see a need to deprecate it. Just keep it. What do you think?
