[PATCH] docs: Discourage users from using fwcfg

[Daniel P. Berrangé]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > > Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
> > > missed my patches: users should prefer <oemStrings/> over fwcfg.
> > > The reason is that fwcfg is considered somewhat internal to QEMU
> > > and it has limited number of slots and neither of these applies
> > > to <oemStrings/>.
> > > 
> > > While I'm at it, I'm fixing the example too (because it contains
> > > incorrect element name) and clarifying sysfs/ exposure.
> > > 
> > > 1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-May/msg00957.html
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek at redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > docs/formatdomain.rst | 14 +++++++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> 
> 
> > It's nice that you say that, but people who would like to use fw_cfg for
> > passing
> > in a huge blob, which is saved in a file, will read this, go to
> > <oemStrings/>
> > and see that there is no way to pass a file as an input.  Should that be
> > dealt
> > with somehow?  Or would that be discouraged as well?
> 
> Unfortunately, QEMU doesn't allow reading OEM strings from a file (at least
> quick glance over hw/smbios/smbios.c doesn't show any signs it's allowed).

Indeed, that is an RFE I've never got around to

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 :|