Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] qemu_passt: Fix issues with PID file

[Laine Stump <laine@laine.org>]

On 2/16/23 8:32 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> This is a v2 of:
> 
> https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2023-February/237731.html
> 
> diff to v1:
> - Merged patches that were ACKed in v1,
> - Dropped 4/4 from the original series (the one that sets --foreground),
>    and implemented a different approach
> 
> Michal Prívozník (5):
>    qemu_passt: Avoid double daemonizing passt
>    qemu_passt: Report passt's error on failed start
>    qemu_passt: Make passt report errors to stderr whenever possible
>    qemu_passt: Deduplicate passt killing code
>    qemu_passt: Let passt write the PID file

This is everything that was in the patch I sent last week, with the 
following additions

1) adding NULLSTR() around the reference to errbuf in patch 2/5

2) adding "--stderr" to the commandline in patch 3/5 (which I found to 
be unnecessary in my testing - as Stefano says everything goes to stderr 
until passt has completed its init anyway)

3) the other bit of patch 3/5 which adds an extra message telling the 
user to look into the designated logfile for the error - this is 
unnecessary (and actually now counter-productive, as it forces you to 
look elsewhere for the error when you wouldn't have needed to) because 
of patches I've sent to passt.

4)  patch 4/5 that is a cleanup de-duplicating code

5) patch 5 changes additional code (that I didn't touch in my patch) to 
use virPidFileReadPath() instead of virPidFileReadPathIfLocked(), and 
virProcessKillPainfully() instead of the higher level 
virPidFileForceCleanupPath().

So it all seems fine (except the error reporting stuff), but why revert 
a patch only to push back the same changes in a deconstructed fashion 
plus some fixups, rather than just posting a followup or two?

> 
>   src/qemu/qemu_passt.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>   1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>