On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 2:29 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> +static void x86_machine_get_linuxboot_seed(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const
> char *name,
> + void *opaque, Error **errp)
> +{
> + X86MachineState *x86ms = X86_MACHINE(obj);
> + OnOffAuto linuxboot_seed = x86ms->linuxboot_seed;
> +
> + visit_type_OnOffAuto(v, name, &linuxboot_seed, errp);
> +}
> +
> +static void x86_machine_set_linuxboot_seed(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const
> char *name,
> + void *opaque, Error **errp)
> +{
> + X86MachineState *x86ms = X86_MACHINE(obj);
> +
> + visit_type_OnOffAuto(v, name, &x86ms->linuxboot_seed, errp);
> +}
> +
Gross, no! There is no reason at all to make this into a user tunable.
Please don't do that. The whole point is that this is a simple
transparent mechanism.
There's also no need to usurp my patchset. I sent a v7 incorporating
your feedback. So this isn't really appreciated either. I actually
asked you not to usurp this over IRC, but you did anyway. If your goal
is "alienate this contributor so he doesn't like working on QEMU,"
then you're succeeding.
Here's v7:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20220721125636.446842-1-ja...@zx2c4.com/
This will handle your ridiculous theoretical migratory concerns with
minimal invasiveness and without having to introduce userfacing
tunables.
Let's keep discussion on that v7 thread, please.
Thanks,
Jason
